Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

KILMARNOCK WATER ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, relating to Kilmarnock Water," presented by Secretary Sir John Gilmour; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 106.]

Oral Answers to Questions — THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (SUNDAY OPENING).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received any representations asking him to consider amending the present legislation so as to give theatres and variety halls holding music and dancing licences the same privileges of Sunday opening as at present exist and are granted in the London area to cinemas; and can he state what has been his reply?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second therefore does not arise.

Mr. DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman been asked to receive a deputation from the managers on the subject?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: When I say "no," such request has not come before me.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS, SOHO (DISTURBANCES).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 2.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention
has been directed to the increase in knife and revolver affrays between gangs of aliens in Soho; that this menace is considered by residents to be greater now than it has been for many years; and what action he proposes to take?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have no reason to believe that such affrays are on the increase—in fact, none has occurred for upwards of two years—nor that residents are menaced. The third part of the question does not therefore arise.

Mr. THURTLE: Does the Home Secretary deprecate these libels on London?

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCK EXCHANGE DERBY SWEEPSTAKE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 3.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the illegality of lotteries, he proposes to take action in the matter of the Stock Exchange Derby sweepstake?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It has never been the practice to interfere with private lotteries which do not involve some, at least, of the mischiefs against which the law is properly directed in the case of public lotteries.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this Stock Exchange lottery is not a public one and a gamble? Does he think it fair to allow that lottery to take place when a shopkeeper in a back street, who at Christmas time tries to dispose of a goose by means of a lottery is penalised and fined? Does he think it is fair that such a contrast should be made between these two sections of the community?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The law very frequently does involve contrasts. I am advised by my legal advisers that this is not a public lottery, and, as such, I have no right to interfere.

Sir R. THOMAS: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to us what it really is, if it is not a public lottery?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I should say it is a private lottery with certain semi-public characteristics.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Has the Home Secretary evidence that members of the Stock Exchange have bought and retained over 1,000,000 of these vouchers; and is he aware that the big banks are prosecuting the Calcutta sweep in every direction, while small societies and trade unions all over the place are being harassed? I press for an answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be most irregular to have a Debate on this subject at Question Time.

Mr. MONTAGUE: There is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Hundreds of trade unions are being prosecuted for doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same way.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that there will be no more persecution of people who organise hospital tombolas?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: First of all, the hon. and gallant Member must not talk about "persecution," or confound that with prosecution.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I meant the word "persecution."

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Then, as far as that is concerned, I have no answer to make.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that there is already enough stupid interference by his Department?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member must not confound the action of my Department with the action of the police. The duty of the police throughout the country is to take action in cases where it is brought to their knowledge that the law has been evaded or broken in any respect. It is not the duty of my Department. My Department does not interfere with the action of the local police.

Sir R. THOMAS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has received a quite definite answer to his question.

Mr. SHINWELL: Hon. Members on the benches opposite have all bought tickets.

Sir R. THOMAS: It is not a satisfactory answer.

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Sir R. THOMAS: Having regard to the very unsatisfactory nature of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, are we not entitled to ask supplementary questions to try to get a satisfactory answer?

Mr. SPEAKER: Question Time is not the time for argument. The hon. Gentleman put a question on the Paper and has received his answer, although it may not be an answer which is satisfactory to him.

Sir R. THOMAS: With all respect, is not Question Time a time for us to try to get satisfactory answers from Ministers?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is a time for asking for information.

Mr. MONTAGUE: Why not prosecute the banks? They are selling Calcutta tickets everywhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

CHIEF CONSTABLESHIPS (APPLICANTS' REFERENCES).

Mr. HAYES: 4.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will state the dates of application to, and approval by, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis in respect of the reference supplied by the Assistant-Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to Commander Kemble, Royal Navy, when applicant for the Chief Constableship of Warwickshire; and whether it is proposed to extend the same facilities to members of the Metropolitan police when making applications for similar appointments?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No such application was made or was necessary. The testimonial in question related exclusively to knowledge of Commander Kemble which had been gained in the Navy and was given by Admiral Royds on that footing. Applications for testimonials by members of the Force who are applying for chief constableships are considered on their merits.

Mr. HAYES: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman afford the same facilities to officers of the police as appear to have been granted to people who have no association with the Police Service?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Any officer of the service who is applying for a chief constableship can apply to the Commissioner or to any officer in the Force whom he knows, and the Commissioner can give permission, and does give permission, for a testimonial to be given.

Mr. HAYES: Does not the right hon. Gentleman see that there is a vast difference between an officer when submitting his application being able to append a certificate from the Commissioner and his telling the local authority to whom he is applying that they can have a certificate if they apply to the Commissioner for it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will consider whether the Regulations can be modified in that respect.

PENSIONS.

Sir FRANK MEYER: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether pre-War retired police officers applying for an increase of pension under the Pensions (Increase) Acts, 1920 and 1924, are required every year to render a detailed statement of their total means from all sources; and whether it is the practice of the Treasury to refuse or reduce an increase in the pre-War pensions of these police officers according to this statement of means?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Under Section 2 (3) of the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1920, which applies to all classes of pensioners (including police pensioners) covered by the Acts, it is one of the statutory conditions for an increase of pension that the pensioner must satisfy the pension authority that his means, including his pension, are less than £150 per annum if unmarried, or £200 per annum if married. If on examination of his statement it appears that a pensioner fails to comply with this statutory condition, the pension authority have no alternative but to adjust the amount of the increase accordingly.

Sir F. MEYER: Is it not clear that this kind of condition is a direct preventive of thrift, and is it not time also that something was done to make this a right instead of a charity?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: A contribution is made by Parliament, and I do not think that it is quite fair to call it a charity. It is a right by Act of Parliament.

WHIST DRIVES.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has given any general instructions regarding small whist drives of a social character organised amongst friends where small prizes are competed for; if he is aware that in certain cases in the Metropolitan area the organisers of these little tournaments are being pestered and hunted and warned of their illegality; and whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have called the attention of all chief officers of police to the views of my predecessors, which I stated and endorsed in reply to a question in this House last year—namely, that the police should not interfere unless harm is being done. There is no reason to think that there has been interference unnecessarily in the Metropolitan police district, but if the hon. and gallant Member has any information to a contrary effect, I should be glad if he would send it to me so that I may look into it.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if that answer means that the right hon. Gentleman will look into cases that have arisen in the provinces?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite prepared to consider any case. Of course, I cannot pledge myself as to any course of action, because I have to consider what powers I have.

Mr. HAYES: In view of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the codification of the law is likely to be undertaken to repeal some of these old-fashioned enactments?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Naturally, it is my duty to read and consider, as I have already considered, the Report of the Royal Commission. The hon. Member knows that it is not possible to undertake any legislation in this Parliament, but the matter will undoubtedly be considered in the next.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY: Is not this the broad dividing line, that where no personal profit is made out of these whist drives there is no illegality and the police do not interfere?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be very much better if my hon. and learned Friend would read the answer which I gave in the House about a year ago. It was a very full answer setting out the views of my predecessor, which I endorsed.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that this form of pastime is perfectly legal?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is the difficulty. It is so difficult to get the exact facts, and some of these pastimes may be technically illegal. What I have done is to advise the police—I cannot do more than that, as I told the House last year—not to prosecute in these cases unless real harm is being done to the community.

Mr. HAYES: Will the right hon. Gentleman receive from me a contribution for the Borstal Fund if my number happens to be the winning number in the Stock Exchange Sweepstake?

DISCIPLINARY CASES.

Mr. DAY: 6.
asked the Home Secretary the number of police officers who have appeared before the Scotland Yard disciplinary board since the recent appointment of the First Commissioner of Police up to and including the 16th of April last; and whether this number shows an increase on the comparable previous period?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Between the 8th November, 1928 (the date of Lord Byng's appointment) and the 16th April, 1929, the number of officers who appeared before the Disciplinary Board was 57. For the same period immediately preceding the 8th November, 1928, the number was 56.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether many of these cases were left over from the régime before Lord Byng took office?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I cannot say that. I have given the hon. Member exactly the information for which he asked.

EDUCATION.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE (PROSECUTION, BAWTRY).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that Mr. H. Roper, of Bawtry, was recently summoned for non-attendance of his daughter at school; that he was fined 6s, and because he was unable to pay the fine he was conveyed to Doncaster, thenceforward to Leeds handcuffed and placed in prison; that he has a wife and six children all under the age of 12 years, and his total income is £2 0s. 8d. per week, out of which he has to pay 14s. per week for rent and rates; and will he inquire into this case with a view to a remission of this sentence?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Having made inquiry, I find that Mr. Roper was summoned to appear before the West Biding County Bench at Doncaster on 20th March. He did not appear on that day and no letter from him was received. He was fined 5s. On 5th April a commitment was issued in respect of that sum plus 1s. the cost of commitment. Two or three days later he was interviewed by a police officer when he flatly refused to pay and was told, in answer to a question, that the alternative was seven days imprisonment. He was given three or four days to think it over but again refused to pay. On Saturday, 13th April, he was arrested and taken in the police officer's own car to Doncaster. From Doncaster he was taken with another prisoner to Leeds Prison and as the escort consisted of a single officer, the two men were handcuffed together. On Monday, 15th April, someone paid the amount then necessary to procure his release, namely, 4s. 4d., and he was released and his fare was paid to his home. There is, therefore, no question of remission and I see no ground for complaint.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Home Secretary aware that the total wages of this man are only a little over £2 a week, out of which he has to pay 14s. per week for rent. That leaves him 26s. per week to maintain eight persons? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, in view of the economic circumstances of this case, that what appears to have been an excess of zeal in sending this man to prison might have been avoided?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. I have gone very fully into this case. The man in question quite definitely said that he did not intend to pay.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He could not pay.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The man said he would not pay, and therefore the Bench had no option but to commit him to prison for non-payment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible for a person to maintain himself, his wife and six children upon 26s. a week, and in the short time of three weeks set apart 6s. to pay that fine; and does he not think that, if the economic circumstances of this case had been taken into consideration, the magistrates might have given him more time to pay the fine?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It was quite possible for this man to send his child to school, and not definitely keep her away until he got into trouble.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man's wife was ill, and totally incapable of doing anything for herself or her five young children, and that the oldest girl was kept at home for the purpose of looking after her mother and the other young children? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, in those circumstances, this man might very well have been treated more sympathetically?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Of course, I will take that information from the hon. Member, but it was not before the Bench. The man declined to attend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: He could not attend.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At any rate, he could have afforded a three-halfpenny stamp in order to inform the Bench of those facts, but he did nothing of the kind. He treated the Bench with indignity, and they were bound to convict him.

Mr. SPEAKER: rose—

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not fair to submit to the right hon. Gentleman facts which have not been brought to his notice in a case involving the imprisonment of a man with seven persons dependent upon him? In those circum-
stances, is it not fair to bring the local knowledge to the notice of the Home Secretary?

Mr. SPEAKER: This is hardly the time to do it.

DEAF AND DUMB CHILDREN.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his Department admits any special obligation to assist deaf and dumb children after they leave school to secure employment; if so, can he state what proportion of such children secure employment immediately and how many remain unemployed; and will he consider the advisability of inquiring fully into this class of case with a view to ensuring that employment at reasonable wages shall be available for all persons suffering from these disabilities?

Captain WALLACE (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The function of the Board of Education in the matter is to secure that the education and training of deaf children shall be such as to fit them as far as possible to become independent self-supporting members of the community. The hon. Member will find full information on the training and placement of deaf children in the chapter on the deaf child (Appendix B) in the Report for 1927 of the Board's Chief Medical Officer. I would refer him particularly to Section XIII which deals with the placement of the deaf child in work on leaving school and details the different agencies concerned with placement. My right hon. Friend will consider whether it will be advisable to inquire further into this matter.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. Gentleman bring to the notice of the President of the Board of Education the fact of 16 being the school-leaving age of deaf and dumb children places them at a disadvantage in the labour market, and will he expedite the suggested inquiry with a view to collecting all information with regard to the number of these children?

Captain WALLACE: I will bring that point to the notice of my noble Friend.

Mr. PALING: Will the hon. Gentleman also convey to the President of the Board of Education the information that less
than 50 per cent. of these children succeed in getting jobs; and also that the welfare centres do not cover the entire country; in fact, some of them have not sufficient funds to carry out the work which they are supposed to do?

Captain WALLACE: I have no doubt the President of the Board of Education will read what the hon. Gentleman has said.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 8.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that many employers desirous of employing ex-service men suffering from war disability find difficulty in effecting insurance upon them to cover liability under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, or when they are effected they have to pay very high premiums, and that this militates against the employment of such ex-service men; and whether this matter has received, or will receive, his attention?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: No, Sir. The Disabled Men (Facilities for Employment) Act of 1919 was passed for the express purpose of preventing any trouble of this kind. Under that Act agreements were entered into with a number of insurance companies under which the companies undertook to insure disabled men at the same rate as ordinary workers and, so far as I am aware, these agreements have been effective. If, however, any complaints have come to the knowledge of the hon. and gallant Member and he will furnish me with the necessary particulars, I shall be glad to investigate them.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF (STONE-BREAKING).

Mr. CRAWFURD: 11.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that during the last few months 75 men, all under the age of 45, were selected for stone-breaking by the authorities of casual wards of the Metropolis, but that no one was put on the task unless he had been passed for it by the medical officer of the ward, with the result that 31 were removed from the list; that at Westbury-
on-Severn recently Frederick Sevier protested vigorously against being put on stone-breaking on the ground of his health and asked to see the doctor; that his protest was over-ruled by the Westbury officer and he was set to work; and that he was taken ill on the same day and when he arrived at Ross was found to be very ill indeed and died within five days; and whether he will either abolish stone-breaking as a task for casuals or require that no one be put on the task unless he has first been passed for it by the medical officer?

The MINISTER or HEALTH (Mr. Chamberlain): The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I will send the hon. Member a copy of the answer given to the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring on the 26th March, 1929, which showed that in the case referred to there was no connection between the task performed and the cause of death. As regards the third part of the question, the Regulations direct that a casual shall not be required to perform any task unsuited to his age, strength and capacity, and provide for medical attention to any casual appearing to require it. I see no need for amending the regulations on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. CRAWFURD: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to see that in the case of tasks of this kind the medical inspection is efficient?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is the duty of the local authorities, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not carrying out their duty.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to abolish this task altogether?

INSTITUTION, MARKET BOSWORTH (CHILDREN).

Mr. BELLAMY: 12.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there are 16 young children maintained in the Market Bosworth Poor Law institution and that there is no proper accommodation for these children, and that they cannot be separated from adult and weak-minded inmates; whether he will state the longest period during which any one of these children has been
detained in this institution; and whether he will make representations to the board of guardians on the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am already in correspondence with the guardians of the Market Bosworth Union concerning their failure to comply with the requirement of Article 4 of the Poor Law Institutions Order, 1913, that children between the ages of three and 16 shall not be retained in the institution for a period exceeding six weeks, except on medical grounds. The number of children so detained is at present eight. I will communicate the information requested in the second part of the question to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RATING.

EXCUSAL OF RATES.

Mr. R. RUSSELL: 13.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that certain rating authorities are making abortive the excusal of rates in cases of poverty by the passing of resolutions of compounding and so placing upon the owner the power and liability to collect from the tenants excused; and if he will take steps to prevent this?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The excusal of rates on the ground of poverty and the operation of the compounding provisions are matters entirely within the discretion of the rating authority, and I have no power to interfere.

WEST LOTHIAN.

Mr. SHINWELL: 41.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated amount of relief which will accrue to landowners in the county of West Lothian in the first year arising from de-rating?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): The estimated relief from rates on agricultural lands and heritages in West Lothian in the case of owners is approximately £12,200 of which one half will fall to be passed to occupiers.

Mr. SHINWELL: 42.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the estimated amount of relief to the owners
of mineral royalties in the county of West Lothian in the first year from de-rating?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The estimated relief to owners in respect of mineral rents, including mineral royalties, in the county of West Lothian is approximately £5,000. Where the subject is let on lease, the whole of the relief falls to be passed to the occupier.

Mr. SHINWELL: 43.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the sum paid in rates in respect of industrial hereditaments in the county of West Lothian in the past year and the estimated amount of relief arising from the de-rating proposals?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The estimated total amount of rates paid in respect of industrial lands and heritages in West Lothian for 1927–28, the latest year for which detailed information is available, was £77,800. The estimated amount of relief for the year would be £58,350.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

RADIUM.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 14.
asked the Minister of Health whether the British Empire Cancer Campaign was consulted before the Government decided its action with regard to the proposed radium appeal; and whether the Campaign, as the principal association for the promotion of cancer research, will be asked to undertake the appeal to the public for funds?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to both questions is in the negative. While I appreciate the work being done by the British Empire Cancer Campaign in regard to cancer, I should hesitate to accept the estimation of its position in regard to cancer research contained in my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the Minister of Health not know that the Cancer, Campaign prepared an appeal some time ago on a very extensive scale, and has he considered the advisability of putting the appeal into their hands?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I understood that that was a matter for research and
research only, but, according to the general opinion, it is much more than a matter of research.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the term "research" is used because it is used in the report of the Committee? As a matter of fact, they have appealed very widely for radium, and they have a large stock in hand. Therefore, they are the body to do exactly what is suggested by the Committee on Civil Research. Will the right hon. Gentleman not give us a chance of discussing this question before an appeal is made?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not see any necessity for that at all. My hon. and gallant Friend is mistaken if he supposes that the whole of the recommendations of the Committee dealt with research.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Will the appeal to the public to subscribe take place before the General Election?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have every reason to suppose that it will take place before the General Election.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 47.
asked the Prime Minister what guarantees the Radium Committee have received that the proposed purchase of 20 grammes of radium by voluntary and State funds can be effected at a lower price than the existing price for Great Britain of £12,000 per gramme?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been asked to reply. The sub-Committee were not in a position to secure any guarantee that 20 grammes of radium bought through a single agency would be cheaper than very much smaller amounts bought by numerous purchasers; but the hon. Member will find their reasons for their opinion on the point in paragraphs 71 and 82 of their Report.

PANEL PATIENTS (HOME TREATMENT).

Mr. THURTLE: 15.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, at the inquest proceedings recently on the death of a Shoreditch man named Daniel Fitter, the coroner who presided commented on the inadequacy of the home treatment of this panel patient and of panel patients in general; and if he will
inquire into the home treatment given to insured persons?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have seen Press reports of this case. Insurance practitioners are required by their terms of service to visit and treat patients whose condition so requires at any place within the districts in which the practitioners have undertaken to visit patients; and any complaint that a practitioner has failed to visit a patient when necessary should be made in the first instance to the local Insurance Committee, who must have it investigated. I do not think the present case affords sufficient reason for a general inquiry such as the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the Minister say whether he has received many other such complaints as this?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: If, by "such complaints as this," the hon. Member means complaints of inadequacy of the home treatment of panel patients, I am not prepared to say that I have received many complaints. There are very few complaints.

STEAMSHIPS "TUSCANIA" AND "MASHOBRA" (SMALL-POX CASES).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 26.
asked the Minister of Health if any cases of small-pox have been notified during the past week from passengers or crew on the steamships "Tuscania" and "Mashobra," or from contacts with such persons; if any further deaths have occurred during the week; and what was the vaccination history of the fatal cases that have occurred hitherto?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: According to the information at present available, two cases of small-pox have been notified during the past week from the "Tuscania." No further deaths have occurred, and no case of small-pox has been reported from the "Mashobra." Information as to the vaccinal history of the fatal cases from the "Tuscania" is not yet available.

HOUSING (OXTED AND LIMPS-FIELD).

Mr. TAYLOR: 16.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received the observations of the Godstone Rural Dis-
trict Council on the petition presented to him by 49 applicants for cottages in the area, and supported by a covering letter signed by the rectors of the parishes, the four medical practitioners in the district, and a number of representative local government electors; if so, what is the nature of the council's comment; and whether he will take steps to hold an inquiry into the housing conditions in the parishes of Oxted and Limps-field unless he receives a satisfactory assurance that the necessary number of houses will be erected by the council?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been informed by the district council that the matter has been referred to a special committee for investigation, and that it is expected that this committee will be in a position to report to the council on the 17th May. On receipt of the council's reply, I will consider what further action may be necessary.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. BATEY: 19.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state what were the actuarial figures in 1925, when the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act was passed, as to the number of widows in England and Wales?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer is in the negative. The Report of the Government Actuary dealt with the financial proposals of the Bill, but, as these did not include the provision of pensions for all widows, no estimate of the aggregate number of widows was necessary.

Mr. BATEY: Are we to understand that, when the Government brought in their Bill in 1925 providing for widows' and orphans' and old age pensions, the Minister then did not know and had no estimate of the number of widows in the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We made an estimate of the number of widows to be provided for under the Bill.

Mr. BATEY: How could the right hon. Gentleman make an estimate of the number to be provided for unless he knew the total number of widows in the country?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I see no necessary connection between the two.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 21.
asked the Minister of Health why the appeal for a widow's pension by Mrs. M. J. Roberts, of St. Just, Cornwall, has not yet been settled although the application was made over two years ago?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I find that a notice of the rejection of her claim to a widow's pension was sent to Mrs. Roberts on 23rd December, 1927. Notice of appeal against that decision was lodged by her on 10th February, 1928. The appeal raised very difficult questions, and the Referees found it necessary to suspend their action until a decision could be given under Section 89 of the National Health Insurance Act on the question whether an employment in which the deceased husband was engaged was insurable. Following that decision, it was necessary to have an oral hearing of the appeal, as certain facts with regard to the stamping of a contribution card were in dispute. The oral hearing took place on the 12th February last, and I am informed that the Referees should be in a position to issue their decision on the appeal within the next week.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could not the right hon. Gentleman expedite the settlement of cases such as this, in view of the fact that this particular case has been more or less in process of settlement for the last two years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I admit that it has been a very long time, but that, as the hon. Member will appreciate, is because the pressure of work on the Department is very great, and this case presented peculiar difficulties, which I think account for the exceptional delay. On the whole, I must say, I think it is surprising that there are not more complaints of delay, considering the enormous amount of work that has to be done.

Mr. GARDNER: Why is not the staff increased, in view of the great pressure?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Work of this kind has to be done by specially trained and experienced people, and it is not the slightest use taking on fresh hands to make these investigations. In cases of this kind, we must have people who know the work.

Mr. GARDNER: There are people who have been employed there for nine years. I have a similar case in my pocket now.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 12 months' cases are not uncommon, and will he not consider whether the postponed increase in the Ministry's staff should now take place?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not think that 12 months' cases are common—

Mr. CONNOLLY: Not uncommon.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That only applies to cases in which Section 89 is in question. Those cases take a very long time—six or 12 months—because they require a great deal of correspondence and information from other authorities, which, of course, cannot be hurried by the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

P-CLASS CLERKS.

Mr. FENBY: 22.
asked the Minister of Health the number of P-class clerks recommended by his Department for promotion to established clerical grade under Clause 5 of the Government memorandum of 12th January, 1925; and the number of appointments to the clerical class or classes of his Department from open competition since 1st January, 1928?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The number of P-class clerks promoted to the established clerical grade in my Department is 78. The number of appointments made to the clerical class from open competition since 1st January, 1928, is 45.

Sir R. THOMAS: 33.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is prepared to reconsider the application of the P-class of civil servants for an improvement in their scale of pay, to place them on a similar footing to other civil servants as regards pensions?

Mr. W. BENNETT: 31.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if it is his intention to rectify the question of pay of the P-class of ex-service civil servants, as promised during the negotiations on the Guinness agreement?

The CHANCELLOR of the EX-CHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): The ques-
tion referred to is receiving further consideration. The hon. Member for South Battersea is, however, under a misapprehension in suggesting that any undertaking has at any time been given to improve the terms of remuneration of P-class clerks prescribed by the Guinness agreement.

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 8,000 ex-service men in this class, that in the Provinces, where they have no pension provided for them, the average pay is £2 17s. 4d. a week, and that many of the men are married with large families and have in many cases to depend on charity?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have said that the question is receiving further consideration.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I have an assurance that it is receiving immediate attention, and can the right hon. Gentleman promise that something will be done before the 10th proximo?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would not be proper for me to give an undertaking of that kind, because consideration must necessarily precede an assurance of that description, but the matter will receive prompt attention.

Sir R. THOMAS: Has the right hon. Gentleman not had months of time to consider the matter, and is it fair for him to shoulder the responsibilities on to his successors?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never said anything which could lead the hon. Member to infer either that I should shoulder this responsibility on to my successor or that I should have an immediate successor.

ROYAL COMMISSION.

Major GLYN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the subjects to be investigated by the proposed Royal Commission on the Civil Service will include the working of the machinery of Whitley councils in the service and the general question of the employment of ex-service men in the Civil Service?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.

Major GLYN: Does that mean that the Terms of Reference are sufficiently wide to enable all questions regarding ex-service men in the Civil Service to be inquired into?

Mr. AMMON: Will it include what is known technically as the "Colour Service to count," question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have been asked a specific question to which I have given a definite answer. I must have notice of any further questions.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in order to avoid shelving the questions at issue for a long period, he proposes to expedite the proceedings of the Royal Commission which is to investigate the removal of the marriage bar and other matters concerning the Civil Service; and of what these other important questions consist?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The object of the Royal Commission is, not to shelve, but to undertake a dispassionate and informed examination of the Civil Service from the point of view of its efficiency as a national instrument and of its own well-feeing. The Commission's Terms of Reference and constitution will be announced when the new Parliament meets, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the inquiry will be conducted with despatch.

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

Mr. GARDNER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that cases have recently occurred in the Civil Service of the communication of confidential departmental information to ex-civil servants to be used for propaganda purposes; and what steps he is prepared to take to prevent such a breach of discipline?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am not aware of any cases of the kind referred to. If the hon. Member is in a position to give me any specific information, I will of course have inquiry made.

Mr. GARDNER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the nature of that inquiry would be—what form it would take?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It would largely consist of questions being asked of persons who are likely to be able to give information.

Mr. GARDNER: I learned that quite early when I went to school. I am asking a serious question. There are many precedents for cases of this character, and I am asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer to indicate what form the inquiry will take, and he has not answered. I know it means asking questions, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that there was a case quite recently in the Civil Service, and I wish definitely to know what form this investigation will take. If I do not get an answer to that question I cannot give the information.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If I had it, I might be able to give further information as to the kind of inquiry.

ECONOMY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT.

Mr. FENBY: 23.
asked the Minister of Health what has been the extra charge on the Health Insurance Fund down to 31st March, 1929, due to the increased authorised cost of medical benefit under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Prior to the 1st January, 1927, the actual cost of medical benefit exceeded the charge authorised by the National Health Insurance Act, 1920, upon the funds from which benefits are ordinarily payable. The excess was temporarily met under the National Health Insurance (Cost of Medical Benefit) Act, 1924, from unclaimed stamps and other sources within the National Health Insurance Fund. These temporary provisions came to an end on 31st December, 1926, and, as recommended by the Royal Commission, the full charge not exceeding 13s. per insured person was placed by the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, upon the funds from which benefits are ordinarily payable. The amount by which the actual cost exceeds the charge previously authorised upon the funds from which benefits are ordinarily payable is in England and Wales about £2,000,000 per annum.

Mr. FENBY: 24.
asked the Minister of Health what is the total sum lost to the Health Insurance Fund and the Unemployment Insurance Fund in consequence of the reduction in the amount of the State contributions to these funds under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The reduction in the amount of the State contribution to the National Health Insurance Fund made under the Economy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1926, was effected in consequence of the revision of the actuarial basis of the system. The revision of the actuarial basis was adopted on the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and the financial results are fully explained in the Report of the Government Actuary (Cmd. 2603). Any question relating to Unemployment Insurance should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

DISTRESSED AREAS (WATER RATES, OSSETT).

Mr. RILEY: 25.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the Ossett Urban District Council has recently deprived upwards of 50 families in the borough of water supplies for reasons of non-payment of water rents; that many of these families are miners' families, suffering from unemployment and whose needs are such that they have been receiving assistance from the Lord Mayor's fund; and that the local council has a by-law which prohibits householders from supplying others with water; and if, in the interests of the preservation of health, he will inquire into the matter?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have no information on this matter, and am making inquiry of the council.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD FUND.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended to discontinue the Treasury deduction from the Road Fund income when payments from the Road Fund under Clause 80 of the Local Government Act become due?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I gather that the hon. and gallant Member, in speaking of a Treasury deduction, alludes to the sumptuary tax on private motor vehicles levied for purposes of general revenue. There is nothing in the Local Government Act which furnishes any ground for discontinuing this tax.

RAILWAYS (DEVELOPMENT AND MODERNISATION).

Mr. TAYLOR: 28.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the list of schemes to be submitted by the railway companies, in consideration of the repeal of the railway passenger duty, have been placed before the Government; and whether the construction of short avoiding lines to avoid congestion at level crossings are within the terms of the understanding between His Majesty's Government and the railway companies?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): I have been asked to answer this question. I have not yet received particulars of the schemes which the railway companies are to submit when Parliament has approved the repeal of the duty. The principal object of these schemes will be the development and modernisation of railway transport. As regards level crossings, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for the Hallam Division of Sheffield (Mr. L. Smith).

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the reply to which he has referred me has no relevance whatever to this matter?

Colonel ASHLEY: The reply given yesterday referred to the allocation of money from the Road Fund for level crossings. On the general question we must wait and see what schemes the railway companies put forward, and whether the suggestions they make are adequate.

Mr. TAYLOR: Are we to understand, from, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply, that schemes for the construction of avoiding lines are not excluded from the proposals of the Government?

Colonel ASHLEY: We must wait and see what the proposals of the railway companies are, and then we shall consider the whole matter.

Mr. TAYLOR: In view of the fact that the Government have made an arrangement with the railway companies, could we not have an answer to the question whether or not the alleviation of the level crossing difficulty is included or excluded?

Colonel ASHLEY: I could not say that until I see what proposals the railway companies put forward.

Mr. PALING: Are we to understand that it is being left entirely to the railway companies to suggest how this money shall be spent, and that the Government have made no suggestion?

Colonel ASHLEY: The railway companies have been asked, within certain limits, to put forward their suggestions. The Government will then consider them, and come to their decision.

Mr. PALING: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman state whether level crossings are likely to continue to be used, or whether it is suggested that they should be discarded?

Colonel ASHLEY: I cannot say till I have seen the suggestions.

TEA DUTY (ABOLITION).

Mr. CONNOLLY: 29.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the total remission of the duty on tea and the consequent cessation of charges for bond storage and transport thereto, he contemplates any means of passing on the benefit to the consumers of tea?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I understand that consumers have already reaped the full benefit of the repeal of the Tea Duty through lower retail prices.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the reduction in transport charges and bonded store charges is considerable, and is actually computed at as high a figure as 2d. per lb.; and does he intend to take no steps to see that that reduction is passed on to the consumer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I should certainly not accept, without close examination, the various statements which the hon. Gentleman has just made, but the House
is probably aware that the reduction of duty is 4d. per lb. on foreign tea only, and that it averages rather less than 3½d. per lb. over all tea; that is to say, the average reduction of the duty is ½d. less than the general reduction in retail prices.

Mr. CONNOLLY: May I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that the Treasury have not computed at all the saving due to the reduction in transport and bonded store charges, and intend to take no action to see that the benefit of that reduction is passed on to the consumer?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Treasury have made the sacrifice involved by the abandonment of the Tea Duty of 4d. per lb., and we must allow that important step to carry its effects steadily forward through every range of the tea industry.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in Greater London alone, 2,500 men are about to be paid off; is not that a serious addition to the amount of unemployed labour; and does the Treasury intend to take no steps to counterbalance it?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I can quite understand the chagrin with which the hon. Gentleman views the removal of the Tea Duty.

Mr. CONNOLLY: Has the right hon. Gentleman no answer at all to the question on the Paper?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman think he can evade an answer to the question that has been put, by insolence?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: What was the reason for taking 4d. off the duty on tea?

Mr. CONNOLLY: Is it in conformity with Parliamentary procedure for the word "chagrin" to be used in answer to a question?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. I want to know why it was that you, Sir, stopped the Chancellor of the Exchequer from answering my question. He was quite prepared to answer it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question had nothing to do with the question on the Paper.

Mr. SHINWELL: In your judgment, Sir, is it not desirable for Members of the Front Bench, when replying to questions, to address themselves seriously to the question put, rather than to make clowns of themselves?

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS (FRENCH AND ITALIAN PAYMENTS).

Mr. SULLIVAN: 30.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what payment has been made by France and Italy since 1918 in respect of their debts to this country?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Up to date the French Government have paid £18,000,000 and the Italian Government have paid £14,000,000 on account of their respective war debts to this country.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell the House whether there is any arrangement with the French Government as to repayment of the debt?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, and Parliamentary papers have been laid upon that subject which would well repay the hon. Member's study.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I have read what has taken place here.

DEFENCE ESTIMATES.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total sum provided in the Defence Estimates for 1929–30 for pay, pensions, and allowances as compared with the provision for similar payments in 1913–14; and how the remainder of defence expenditure compares for the two years in question, allowance being made in each case for the change in the value of money?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): As the answer is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the Answer:

The gross amounts provided in the Defence Estimates on account of pay, pensions and allowances (other than those in lieu of services normally provided in kind) were approximately £35,310,000 in 1913–14, and £73,353,000 in 1929. These
figures include pay of reserves and salaries and wages of civilians as well as service pay. The gross remaining expenditure on Defence, as provided in the Estimates for these years, is £47,459,194 and £55,338,500 respectively. In order to arrive at the net totals of Estimates, Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £6,739,894 and to £16,081,500 should be deducted from the gross total expenditure for all purposes for 1913 and 1929 respectively. Owing to the changes in the organisation and composition of the Defence Forces, and particularly to the creation of the Royal Air Force, it is difficult to make an exact comparison of the cost for the two years in question in terms that take account of the change in the value of money. The actual increase in net Effective Votes, however, is £27,9631,000, or just over 40 per cent., which would be more than accounted for by the altered value of money, even if no regard were paid to the large additional expenditure necessitated by the development of the Air Force.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: 34.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that Entertainments Duty was levied upon the charge of admission to an arts and crafts exhibition held in the Mechanics' Institute, Brechin, on the 27th March to the 30th March, 1929; and whether, in view of the fact that the exhibition was entirely educative and that no entertainment of any kind was given, he will consider refunding the duty charged?

Mr. SAMUEL: I am aware that exemption from Entertainments Duty was not granted in respect of the arts and crafts exhibition referred to by the hon. and gallant Member, but I am advised that the exhibition is an entertainment within the meaning of the law relating to Entertainments Duty, and that it does not fall within any of the statutory exemptions from that duty. In these circumstances, I have no power to sanction the repayment desired.

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Does my hon. Friend not think that an exhibition of such educational value should, as in the case of agricultural shows, be exempt
from Entertainments Duty, and would he recommend the necessary alteration in the law of the land?

Mr. SAMUEL: I went into the matter myself a couple of hours ago, and I could see no loophole by which I could, with the sanction of the law, do what the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will not represent Brechin after the General Election?

ROYAL VETERINARY COLLEGE.

Viscount SANDON: 36.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has yet decided on any action to place the Royal Veterinary College on a modern footing?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): No, Sir. I am unable to come to & decision on this question pending the receipt of the Report of the Committee, to which reference was made in the answer given on my behalf to the question put my my Noble Friend on the 14th February last.

Viscount SANDON: It is a very long time ago.

Mr. GUINNESS: The Committee are still hearing evidence though I understand they are approaching the end of their labours.

CREAM (SALES).

Mr. R. RUSSELL: 37.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has any Return showing the loss to the dairy industry caused by the shrinkage in the demand for fresh cream consequent upon the operation of the order of the Ministry of Health prohibiting the use of preservatives in food and the manufacture of reconstituted or synthetic cream?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, Sir; and I fear that there is no information available which would enable any conclusions to be drawn on the subject.

Mr. RUSSELL: Seeing that this is the result of Government action, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is desirable that his Department should be closely in touch with the trade in order to see the consequences of it?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are in touch with the trade. I do not know whether the hon. Member suggests that it is wrong for the Ministry of Health to take the necessary steps to prevent injury from undesirable treatment.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Sir F. MEYER: 38.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what proportion of the £30,000 which is to be set aside for the fishing industry will be available to the English as distinct from the Scottish section of the industry; and in what way it is proposed to distribute the English allocation?

Mr. GUINNESS: Approximately one-third of the £30,000 will be allocated to England and Wales. Of that amount a considerable proportion will, for the time being, be devoted to the expenses of exploratory voyages undertaken at the request of the fishing industry with the object of discovering new banks suitable for fishing. The balance will be available for the relief of dues upon fishing at any ports used by inshore fishermen where it can be shown that the existing charges are so high as unduly to hamper the prosecution of the industry and for furnishing assistance to the fishing industry in any other ways which may hereafter prove to be necessary or expedient.

Sir F. MEYER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in his speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when announcing this concession, specially mentioned the herring industry, and is it not a fact that, in view of this statement, there is nothing to be done for the English herring industry, and is there not a great necessity in the English industry as well as in the Scottish industry?

Mr. GUINNESS: If any British ports show that they are unduly hampered, they will be eligible for the same kind of assistance as the Scottish herring ports.

Mr. KELLY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any portion of the money is to be paid over to the Lights Fund so that the lightkeepers at Yarmouth may have increased wages?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the intention that this research of the trawling grounds will be of value to the
herring industry? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the habits of the herrings are already sufficiently well known?

Mr. GUINNESS: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the question, he will see that it refers to the fishing industry generally, and that his is a supplementary question which limits the inquiry to the herrings.

Mr. RUNCIMAN: What is the principle which the right hon. Gentleman has followed in allocating two-thirds of this grant to Scotland and only one-third to England?

Mr. GUINNESS: Fortunately, the financial position of the fishing harbours in England and in Wales is, generally speaking, better than that in Scotland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is he aware that in the west country that is not the case?

Mr. SPEAKER: Hon. Members must not pursue this matter.

Mr. BOOTHBY: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can give any information with regard to the relief which is to be accorded to the herring fishing harbours in Scotland?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It may be convenient if I take this opportunity of amplifying the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer respecting relief of fishing harbour debts and reduction of dues payable by fishermen.
In the first place, the Government propose to remit or suspend during the present period of depression, part of the loan charges due to the Development Fund in certain cases where they cannot at present be fully met. The Fishery Board for Scotland, in consultation with the Development Commissioners and the Treasury, are examining the financial circumstances of the harbours with a view to consideration of the form, amount and conditions of relief to be granted in appropriate cases.
In the second place, the Government propose that money should be voted to the Fishery Board for Scotland in the new Parliament to enable the harbour authorities concerned to grant reductions in or
rebates on the dues charged to fishermen where those dues are excessive and where the harbour authorities cannot afford to reduce them, having regard to any benefit from de-rating and to their financial obligations and circumstances. The Fishery Board are collecting information as to the dues charged at the various harbours and other particulars in order that the scope, form and other details of the scheme may be considered. Its general principle will be contributions from the Board's Vote towards the loss of revenue resulting from approved reductions in the dues charged to the fishermen. It is anticipated that approximately two-thirds of the provision of about £30,000 mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech will be allocated to Scotland.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is it not the case that the policy pursued by the present Government has almost ruined the fishing industry of Scotland?

Sir R. HUTCHISON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this relief will be granted to the ordinary inshore fishermen right down the coast as well as to the herring industry?

Sir J. GILMOUR: No, Sir, it will apply to the harbours, and, of course, it will depend upon the inquiries which we are now making as to which harbours and under what circumstances it will be granted.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it part of the Arcos raid?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman collaborating harmoniously with his English colleagues in the allocation of this money?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We are satisfied with what we have got.

FILM PRODUCTION (ROYAL PARKS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS).

Mr. DAY: 39.
asked the Under-secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether any applications have been made to his Department for the purpose of taking films in the royal parks or buildings under his direct control;
whether any permissions have been granted; and, if so, will he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Vivian Henderson): From time to time applications are received for permits to take cinematograph pictures in the royal parks, or of various public buildings in charge of the Office of Works, and it is the Department's practice to grant such permission on condition that there is no staging of scenes, either with or without performers, in connection with film plays.

Mr. DAY: In view of the arrangements now come to with the London police, does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that his Department should be more sympathetic towards the taking of films of British scenes in British parks?

Sir V. HENDERSON: I am not aware that the Department is unsympathetic.

CANADIAN HARVEST (BRITISH WORKERS).

Mr. T. GRIFFITHS: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. W. F. Jones, of 22, Cotnes Avenue, Cwmbran, went out to Canada with the harvesters last year and was only employed for two weeks; that since his return he has been asked by the manager of the Pontnewydd Employment Exchange to refund £18 which is due to the exchange as money advanced to pay his passage; and whether he will investigate the case?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): Mr. Jones received a loan of £10 to enable him to go to Canada and a loan of £8 to enable him to return home, and undertook to repay this money. He has been in regular employment since the 3rd November last, but he has so far failed even to reply to letters asking him whether he is in a position to make any repayment. The Department must obviously press for an answer, and when it is received will consider the position it discloses.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Is the Minister aware that this man only worked for
two weeks while in Canada; that a claim is now being put forward by the Employment Exchange asking him to pay £18, and that he has no money with which to pay?

Mr. BETTERTON: This gentleman has not condescended to answer the letters which have been addressed to him. If he will do so, I will consider the matter.

UNEMPLOYMENT (BENEFIT DISALLOWED).

Mr. LANSBURY: 49.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to state on what grounds Mrs. Porteous, of 24, Rich Street, Poplar, was refused unemployment benefit by the West India Dock Road Employment Exchange?

Mr. BETTERTON: This claim was disallowed by the insurance officer on 2nd July, 1928, and at various dates subsequently on the ground that the claimant had not shown that she was genuinely seeking work. She has appealed to the court of referees three times and on each occasion the court confirmed the disallowance, the last occasion being on 2nd April of this year.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the hon. Gentleman take some trouble to investigate this case, seeing that this woman had been employed for 10 years, that she had never been out of work, and was only discharged because of marriage, and that there is not the slightest evidence that she is not genuinely seeking work?

Mr. BETTERTON: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of the merits is not one for me. This case was heard on three separate occasions before the court of referees, and, if the hon. Gentleman likes, I will send him a record of the proceedings, which no doubt will give him the information he desires.

Mr. LANSBURY: 50.
asked the Minister of Labour how many women applying for unemployment benefit on the occasion of discharge from employment owing to marriage have been refused benefit on the ground that they were not genuinely seeking work by the officials at the Hackney, Poplar, Stratford, and Aldgate Exchanges?

Mr. BETTERTON: No statistics are available on this point. I would remind the hon. Member that the disallowance of benefit rests not with the Exchange officials but with the Insurance officers.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that women in the East End who get married are, automatically, refused out-of-work benefit for which many of them have been paying during the whole of their working years? They pay in, but never get a farthing out, and are simply barred because they are married. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is the rule at the Exchanges to refuse them unemployment benefit automatically?

Mr. BETTERTON: I am not aware of that; but the hon. Gentleman knows that these cases are not decided by the Ministry, but by the statutory authorities appointed under the Act.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. SNOWDEN: Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer state the programme of business for next week?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir.
Monday: Finance Bill; Committee.
Tuesday: Supply Committee, 8th Allotted Day, Colonial Office Vote.
Wednesday: Supply, Committee. The Ministry of Health Vote will be taken, constituting the 9th Allotted Day.
Thursday: Supply, Committee, 10th Allotted Day. The subject for discussion has not yet been settled between the different parties.
Friday: The Third Reading of the Finance Bill will be taken.

On any day progress will be made, as far as possible, with outstanding Orders.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Proceedings on the Finance Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on any Private Business set down for consideration at half-past Seven of the clock this evening, by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, be exempted from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House) and, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 8, may be taken after half-past Nine of the clock."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Mr. CHURCHILL: The first part of this Motion gives the Finance Bill precedence to-day over business of Supply, which is the ordinary practice. The second part is proposed at the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and has reference to Private Business and not to Government business. As far as Private Business is concerned, this Motion, in the first place suspends the Eleven o'Clock Rule for the Private Bills which are set down for consideration at half-past seven o'clock to-night, these being the London County Council (General Powers) Bill; the Galloway Water Power Bill, and the County of Cornwall Bill, Second Readings. In the second place, it allows opposed Private Business, other than that under consideration at half-past nine o'clock, to be taken after that hour. Similar Motions have been moved on many previous occasions in recent Sessions at the request of the Chairman of Ways and Means, and this forms an integral part of the measures taken for the general convenience in connection with the winding-up of the business of the Session.

Mr. HARDIE: I wish to ask a question which relates particularly to the Galloway Bill. Should the first Private Bill take all the time up to eleven o'clock, what will happen in regard to the second Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: According to the Motion on the Paper the Eleven o'Clock Rule will be suspended and the other Orders; can be taken afterwards.

Mr. HARDIE: Is not this something quite new? When we vote upon the suspension of any Rule it generally applies to one definite item, but now we are proposing to deal with three different Bills. Is not that something new?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not a question for a Ruling by the Chair; it is a question of the House approving of the Motion on the Paper. If the second part of the Motion is carried, the second Bill, which under the Standing Orders cannot be taken after half-past nine, may be considered in spite of the Standing Orders.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 189; Noes, 86.

Division No. 281.]
AYES.
[3.52 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Penny, Frederick George


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Grotrian, H. Brent
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Pilcher, G.


Balniel, Lord
Hacking, Douglas H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Bennett, Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Hamilton, Sir George
Raine, Sir Walter


Berry, Sir George
Hammersley, S. S.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Henry B.
Hanbury, C.
Reid, Capt. Cunningham (Warrington)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Blundell, F. N.
Hartington, Marquess of
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stratford)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Ross, R. D.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Briscoe, Richard George
Heneage. Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Salmon, Major I.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Bullock, Captain M.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Sandon, Lord


Burman, J. B.
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Savery, S. S.


Campbell, E. T.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald
Skelton, A. N.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Smithers, Waldron


Christie, J. A.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Clarry, Reginald George
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Long, Major Eric
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Colfox, Major Win, Phillips
Looker, Herbert William
Streatfeild, Captain S. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lougher, Sir Lewis
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cooper, A. Duff
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Styles, Captain H. W.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Crookshank. Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Lumley, L. R.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacIntyre, Ian
Templeton, W. P.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
McLean, Major A.
Thorn, Lt.-Cot. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
MacRobert, Alexander M.
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Maitland, A. (Kant, Faversham)
Thomson, Sir Frederick


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell


Ellis, R. G.
Malone, Major P. B.
Tinne, J. A.


Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Margesson, Captain D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of


Everard, W. Lindsay
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Meyer, Sir Frank
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Waldan)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Fermoy, Lord
Monsall, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Watts, Sir Thomas


Fleiden, E. B.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morden, Colonel Walter Grant
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Fraser, Captain Ian
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Frece, Sir Walter de
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Wolmer, Viscount


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nelson, Sir Frank
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Gates, Percy
Newman. Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wragg, Herbert


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptraf'ld.)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Goff, Sir Park
Nuttall, Ellis



Grace, John
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Grant, Sir J. A.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Major Sir William Cope.


NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Connolly, M.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Dalton, Hugh
Hardie, George D.


Amman, Charles George
Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Day, Harry
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Barnes, A.
Dennison, R.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Batey, Joseph
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bellamy, A.
Fenby, T. D.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gardner, J. P.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Broad, F. A.
Gillett, George M.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Gosling, Harry
Kelly, W. T.


Cape, Thomas
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Kennedy, T.


Charleton, H. C.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Cluse, W. S.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Kirkwood, D.


Compton, Joseph
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lansbury, George


Lee, Jennie (Lanark N.)
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Thurtle, Ernest


Lowth, T.
Russell, Richard (Eddlsbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


Mackinder, W.
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Townend, A. E.


MacLaren Andrew
Scurr, John
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shield, G. W.
Viant, S. P.


March, S.
Shinwell, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Montague, Frederick
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, J. C.


Morris, R. H.
Slesser, Sir Henry H.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Paling, W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Windsor, Walter


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Strauss, E. A.
Wright, W.


Potts, John S.
Sullivan, J.



Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Riley, Ben
Taylor, R. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.


Ritson, J.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)



Bill read a Second time, and committed.

LEASEHOLDERS (COMPULSORY ARBITRATION) BILL,

"to enable leaseholders in occupation of houses or premises whose original leases were granted for a term of not less than twenty-one years to acquire the freehold reversion of their lease or to maintain their tenure," presented by Mr. Clarry; supported by Colonel Applin, Sir William Perring, Mr. Womersley, and Sir George Hamilton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 107.]

BILLS REPORTED.

FIRE BRIGADE PENSIONS BILL,

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 109.]

PRESERVATION OF INFANT LIFE BILL [Lords],

changed to

"INFANT LIFE PRESERVATION BILL [Lords],"

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

BASTARDY (WITNESS PROCESS) BILL,

Reported, without Amendment, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration To-morrow.

DONCASTER AREA DRAINAGE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments and Minutes of Evidence, from the Joint Committee on Railway (Air Transport) Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Joint Committee), re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 108.]

CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL,

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

NEWPORT (SALOP) URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords],

AIRE AND CALDER NAVIGATION BILL [Lords],

MOUNT VERNON HOSPITAL BILL [Lords],

DERBYSHIRE AND NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ELECTRIC POWER BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

YORKTOWN (CAMBERLEY) AND DISTRICT GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill to be read the Third time.

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION (RIVERS IMPROVEMENT) BILL [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

BRIDGES BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Tunbridge Wells to erect a town hall and other buildings; to acquire lands for those purposes and for the purposes of their water undertaking and the protection of their water supply from contamination; to make further provision with regard to the supply of water by the Corporation; and for other purposes" [Tunbridge Wells Corporation Bill [Lords].

TUNBRIDGE WELLS CORPORATION BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Amendment) Bill): Captain Briscoe, Earl of Dalkeith, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Guinness, Mr. Lunn, Mr. March, Sir Walter Raine, Mr. Simms, Colonel Sinclair, and Miss Wilkinson.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Brigadier-General Brooke; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Baillie-Hamilton.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Arthur Michael Samuel): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the first of the two Finance Bills which are to give legal sanction to the proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer before the House in his Budget Speech, and debated on several occasions during the last 10 or 12 days. This, the first of the two Bills, is intended to make the revenue safe. The second Bill will be necessary in order to deal with the complicated arrangements which are required to give effect to the changes which will not come into operation until later in the year. The House will notice that there are no new taxes in this Bill, and I cannot conceive a Bill less calculated to arouse controversy than this one. It will play its part in putting into effect a sound Budget, and it contributes a stimulus at many points to industry. At the same time, it takes a long step towards a free breakfast table. There are two Clauses in this Bill which, I am sure, will obtain complete assent in every quarter of the House—I mean the Clauses dealing with the abolition of the Tea Duty and the Railway Passenger Duty.
There are five effective Clauses in the Bill, but I do not propose to weary the House by going through them at any length. The first one deals with Income Tax. It does not alter anything which appeared in a similar Clause last year, except in a very trivial way. It drops certain temporary provisions for which the need has now expired, because their work has been done. Those two temporary provisions refer to the years 1927–28, and 1928–29, and as their work is now at an end, they drop out. I listened with great care and enjoyment, as everyone does, although all may not have been in agreement with him, to the speech of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in dealing with the Income Tax question last Monday. One or two points stood out in that
speech, and I would like to make some observation upon them. He used these words:
The other side is the side of industrial savings, that is, the amount which is available to-day for all kinds of industrial development calculated to increase employment.
He went on to say:
As industry and commerce recover, these savings will increase."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1929; cols. 657–8, Vol. 227.]
I want to deal with the points to which he referred, but not in a hostile spirit. I agree with every word he said. I am glad he said it. It is better that he should say it than I. If I had said it, some would have remarked, "Well, Mr. Samuel is a Conservative." Here we have a member of the Opposition saying something with which I am in entire agreement. Let us see exactly where those observations lead. I accept the figure which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Edinburgh quoted. He took the Report of the Colwyn Committee which was set up in 1924, and he pointed out that the Colwyn Committee arrived at a figure of £450,000,000 a year as the amount of the national savings. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that £450,000,000 a year have been saved in the opinion of the Colwyn Committee, and have been saved for the last five years. I want to draw the attention of the House, and especially of Members on our side, to that fact. Here we have a kind of super-Sinking Fund going on in addition to the Sinking Fund for the repayment of debt set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We are filling in the pool of industrial savings. Five years at £450,000,000 a year means that we have during the past five years added to the general pool of the assets of the nation £2,250,000,000. I had not realised it until the right hon. Gentleman put it in that form the other day. I hope the country does realise that we have added in five years to the pool of wealth in this country £2,250,000,000.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: The workers have done it.

Mr. SAMUEL: We have all done it. We are all workers. We have, as is well known, a War debt of something like £7,000,000,000. Part of the debt which
now exists was pre-War, but I think I am correct in saying that, taking a round figure, the War debt is somewhere about £7,000,000,000. We are paying it off by a Sinking Fund, and yet we are all the time replacing wasted assets, wasted as a result of the War to the tune of £7,000,000,000. We have, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own showing, with which I agree, based on the Colwyn Committee's Report, put back into the pool of the national wealth £2,250,000,000 during the last five years—a very fine and very healthy position.
Let me take the House a little further, and let me appeal to hon. Members on my side to follow this line of thought. What stronger argument can there be, what better proof can there be of the wisdom of the country continuing this process under a Conservative Government? Let us have another 10 years of savings at the same rate as those cited by the Colwyn Committee, supported by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh and by me—and I do not think that we should be on the side of extravagance in saying that £450,000,000 a year is now being exceeded judging by the overseas trade balance, and seeing that our export trade is better. If we go on for another 10 years saving at the rate of £450,000,000 a year, making £4,500,000,000 added to the amount which the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh has admitted, and which I agree was £2,250,000,000, you have there built up a fresh supply of assets, increasing the national wealth by approximately £6,750,000,000 or about the same figure as the debt due to the War. What is the result? The right hon. Gentleman said:
As commerce and industry recover, these savings will increase.
Industry and commerce are recovering, as shown by the various indices of national prosperity and these savings are increasing. I draw the attention not only of the House, but I shall call the attention of my own division to that fact. No prudent elector can wish to alter that condition of affairs by some untried nostrum which might upset our power to save money in that way. Electors will prefer to continue a state of things which has permitted us to save £450,000,000 a year. They will prefer leaving a Government to continue the same conditions
which have brought us to the improved positon in which we find ourselves. This Budget will help towards that end.
There was some reference on the last occasion to the relative positions of indirect taxation and direct taxation. Although this is not quite so contentious as the point I have just made, seeing that Income Tax and Super-tax, which are dealt with in this Bill, are simply and purely direct taxation, I will ask the House to let me deal briefly with the relative position of indirect and direct taxation. I am not making a debating point, but merely trying to make a plain statement of fact. In 1913–14 indirect taxation—I will leave out decimal points—was 42 per cent. of the total taxation, and direct taxation was 58 per cent. In 1924–26 the figure of indirect taxation had fallen to 33 per cent., and direct taxation was 67 per cent. In the current year 1929–30, if you include those taxes which are indirect taxes, but are practically no burden on the poor, such as oil, betting, silk and the McKenna Duties—although, of course, I know they have every right to take advantage of purchasing the goods on which these taxes are placed, still these taxes are theoretically indirect—indirect taxation is 35.61 per cent. That is the total gross percentage, and if you take off these theoretically indirect taxes which I have just mentioned, amounting to 3.77 per cent., you have to-day indirect taxation 31.84 per cent.—the lowest figure on record—as against direct taxation 64.39 per cent.
Let me take again a figure on rather broader ground in order to answer those who think that the direct taxpayer is not paying his due share. The figures are 31.84 per cent. for indirect as against 64.39 per cent. for direct, or adding the theoretical indirect taxation, 35.61 per cent. as against 64.39 per cent. Thus you have the direct taxpayer paying nearly twice as much as the indirect taxpayer. Even then the picture is not complete. It does not show how heavy the burden is on the shoulders of the direct taxpayer. Although the direct taxpayer is, according to these figures, paying 65 per cent. as against the 35 per cent. of the indirect taxpayer, it must not be forgotten that in practice the direct taxpayer pays also indirect taxes,
whereas a large proportion of the indirect taxpayers do not pay direct taxes at all.
If, as I understand from the speech of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, it is the intention of his party to impose more rigorous or even more vindictive taxation upon the direct taxpayer, I would ask him in fairness to look at the financial statement on page 18 of White Paper No. 84. Out of a total of receipts from taxation of £666,000,000, direct taxes—Inland Revenue taxes, which comprise Income Tax, Super-tax, Estate Duty, Stamp Duty, Excess Profits Duty, Corporation Profits Duty and Land Tax—none of these are indirect taxes—amount to no less than £412,000,000. The balance of £250,000,000, which is indirect taxation—Customs and Excise—is borne not only by the indirect taxpayers but also by the direct taxpayers. Consequently the direct taxpayer is not paying less than his full measure of contribution towards the general expenditure of the nation.
When we look at the taxation of necessities and comforts, sugar, tea, coffee, cocoa and matches, we find that when the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) left office, the amount raised was in the neighbourhood of £30,700,000. It is now £20,000,000 under a Tory Government. In 1924–25, 4.43 per cent. of our total tax revenue was derived from the necessities and comforts of the people. To-day the proportion is 2.91 per cent. That is the lowest figure on record.
I now pass to the second Clause of the Bill, which deals with the Betting Duty. I do not think I am justified in wearying the House by going over the points of that discussion again, and I merely draw attention to the fact that the Clause deals with the extinction of the turnover tax on Betting Duty. I will add something which has not yet been said, and that is that the Exchequer will benefit, by the saving on administration, through the extinction of this Duty, to the extent of £65,000 a year. The third Clause deals with the repeal of the Railway Passenger Duty. The capitalised value of that duty will be spent on modernising railway transport. Here you have the effect of the Budget giving a stimulus to industry. The money will be spent on such work as improvements in port equipment and in terminal facilities, improve-
ments in the organisation of goods yards, and in the alteration of permanent ways and bridges in order to allow them to carry heavier rolling stock. Here we have a virtuous circle of benefit arising out of the repeal of the Duty. There will be a beneficial stimulus to the production of material for the purpose of these railway improvements. What is more, you will increase potential employment in an industry which already gives a livelihood to 600,000 men and their families.
Clause 4 deals with hops and merely continues the duty for another four years, and makes some slight alterations in the method of fixing the duty on hop oil, and allows duty on warehoused hops to be charged on delivery weight. Beyond that there is nothing to call for comment. Clause 5 abolishes the Customs Duty on tea and removes a burden of £6,200,000 off the shoulders of the poor. I have now given a short review of the five Clauses of the Bill. I assert without contradiction that there is nothing in the Bill to invite an adverse vote. The Bill will be welcomed in the House and in the country as giving effect to a policy which is based upon sound statesmanship.

Mr. DALTON: The hon. Gentleman in his apologia for this Bill said that he thought no prudent elector would desire to change a condition of affairs under which he, in association with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, determined our financial policy. My mind goes out to certain parts of the country where, I can imagine, a large number of prudent electors will display their prudence in exactly an opposite direction to that which the hon. Gentleman imagines. I think the view will be taken by them that it is very imprudent to retain in office a Government which, at the end of five years, has left the finances of the country in such a miserable condition as I hope to show they are in now. The hon. Member said that one of the great merits of this Finance Bill was that it imposed no new taxes. I venture to say that we shall not get our national finances into right order until certain additional taxes and increases of existing taxes have been imposed. One reason why our national finances are in their present unsatisfactory condition is precisely because certain people have received remissions of
taxation, and that the revenue has thereby been depleted with very unsatisfactory results.
The Financial Secretary said that this was a Budget which would pay its own way. It is paying its own way at the expense of the Sinking Fund, and I think we shall find, when the year is up, that once more there have been grave underestimates of certain branches of expenditure, particularly the National Debt charges. It is clear that unless the Bank Bate is soon lowered, of which there is no immediate prospect, it will be found that the cost of interest on the Floating Debt will again, as last year, be very-much above the estimate. The margin in this Budget is a surplus of only £4,000,000, assuming that the Estimates are correct. I think it likely that that £4,000,000 will be more than swallowed up by this one cause of under-estimating alone. The hon. Member, of course, made much play with the repeal of the Tea Duty. He said it was a long step towards a free breakfast table. It is also rather a slow step. In 1924 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Labour Government cut the Tea Duty in half by reducing it from 8d. to 4d. We have had to wait five years in order to get the remaining 4d. taken off. It has been publicly stated on many occasions that, if the Labour Government had remained in office, this repeal would have taken place not in 1929, but in 1925. Therefore this step is a little belated. The Liberal party, of course, promised a free breakfast table as long ago as 1895, in the well known Newcastle programme. Perhaps this is even more belated in relation to the promise of that time than in relation to the performance of the Labour Government five years ago.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I see is not present, committed a historical inexactitude in his Budget speech, when he said that there had been a Tea Duty since the days of Queen Elizabeth. I know that the Financial Secretary is a keen student of history. Queen Elizabeth, as is well known, died in 1603. I find on consulting the authorities that the first reference to tea in a taxation Statute is in 1660. That is according to William's "King's Revenue," a well-known reference book on the subject, and in Buxton's "Finance and Politics," it
is stated that it was not until nearly the end of the 17th century that tea was first taxed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer therefore, in small matters as in great, is somewhat inaccurate, and in this case he is wrong to the extent of more than half a century. Perhaps the Financial Secretary will look up the facts in order that we may get the position correct from a historical point of view. However that may be, it is indeed a solemn thought that we shall probably never again discuss the taxation of tea in this House. I am sure that future Governments, after this step has been taken, will never again seek to impose the tax A Labour Government would not desire, a Conservative Government would not dare, and a Liberal Government, which ex hypothesis is impossible, would not be able, to do so. In our financial debates of the future, there shall be no more tea.
I wish to raise a further question about the taxation of food. Why is it that coffee and cocoa are still to be taxed? In the past it has been a general practice to associate movements of the Tea Duty with corresponding movements in the duties on coffee and cocoa. For example, my right hon. Friend in 1924 swept away a considerable part of the taxes on these other foods and also, of course, on sugar, and although, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer rotundly informed us in the Budget speech, there are Gladstonian precedents for the independent treatment of tea, is it not rather hard on the people who grow coffee and cocoa, and especially our fellow citizens in other parts of the Empire, that they should be subject to what they will regard as unfair competition on the part of tea? Tea is to a great extent a substitute for coffee and cocoa, and if it be wholly untaxed, as it rightly is, coffee and cocoa will be prejudiced to that extent. It appears to me that there is no reason at all why the Government should not have swept away all the remaining taxes on coffee, cocoa and chicory. It could have been done at the cost of only £1,000,000. The Government could afford £1,000,000 to the brewers through the readjustment of the licence duties, and if they could afford that, why could they not have afforded the £1,000,000 necessary out of their
prospective surplus of £4,000,000 in order to clear away the remaining taxes on the other foods competitive with tea?
I would like to draw the attention of the Government, who have often talked about Imperial preference, to the fact that as long as the duties on coffee and cocoa remain while tea is duty free, they are taxing the producers of coffee and cocoa within the British Empire, while they are allowing tea grown outside the Empire to come in untaxed. They are, therefore, giving a form of inverted preference to a number of growers outside the British Dominions. I submit that the proper course would have been to sweep away the whole of these additional duties on tea, coffee, cocoa and chicory, from whatever source they come.
With regard to the reduced Licence Duty, it has been argued by some that this benefit will inure, not to the brewers, but to the licensed victuallers.

Sir BASIL PETO: May I ask your advice, Mr. Speaker, whether we are entitled to discuss all the matters included in the second Finance Bill of 1929, as well as those in the Bill now before the House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that the House should be precluded from discussing the whole financial position of the country. I think that they ought to be able to do that, in spite of the Finance Bill being divided into two.

Mr. DALTON: I should like to say, by way of comment on the point which the hon. Member has raised, that these matters were dealt with as a whole in the Budget speech, and the Licence Duties are a part of the financial proposals of the year and of the Conservative party's electioneering apparatus for next month. It has been urged by certain apologists of the Conservative party that the licensed victuallers, and not the brewers, will get the advantage. But I read in last week's "Sunday Times," a paper which gives more steady support to the Government than most Sunday papers, that the City Editor was surprised that brewery shares had not yet gone up because, in his judgment, owing to the large number of tied houses in the country, this benefit is really going into the brewers' pockets. That is a very in-
teresting authority which can be quoted against any statement to the contrary.
There is a small point arising out of this to which I should like some answer. Why is a differentiation made between England and Scotland with regard to this licence reduction? Why should the Scottish licensees not be placed on the same footing at the English licensees? I understand that there is considerable feeling in some parts of Scotland that the adjustment has not been made fairly, and that Scotland has not received corresponding advantages with England. It would give some reassurance if the Government gave a promise to make a corresponding reduction in the case of Scotland. I see that one of the representatives of Edinburgh is anxiously supporting the point of view that I am submitting.

Sir PATRICK FORD: On a point of personal explanation, may I say that I think that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The real discrepancy is in the question of the off-licence, and not the on-licence.

Mr. DALTON: The whole adjustment of duties in England, of course, is dependent upon the fact that certain advantages are given in respect of on-licences, and other advantages in respect of off-licences. In Scotland, I understand, there are no corresponding advantages.

Sir P. FORD: The trouble is really a discrepancy with regard to the treatment of off-licence holders.

Mr. DALTON: This is a matter which I am quite content to leave to Scottish Members to elaborate in detail, but rumours have reached me that there is a feeling on this subject in Scotland, and I thought it my duty to refer to the point in order to give the Financial Secretary an opportunity of explaining what is to be done for Scotland in the matter.

Captain FRASER: When the hon. Gentleman is representing this feeling in Scotland, is it his desire that this concession should be extended to Scotland?

Mr. DALTON: I am not expressing any view; I am only pointing out the inequitable treatment. My view is that this reduction of licences is a dole to the brewers, and ought not to be embodied in the Budget at all. The point that I
am putting is that there is a difference of treatment between England and Scotland, and that it would be helpful to know why this difference exists and if it is intended to continue it.

Captain FRASER: rose—

Mr. DALTON: Neither the hon. and gallant Gentleman nor I are representative of Scottish constituencies, and this matter might be left to Scottish Members to continue.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: They are capable of looking after themselves.

Mr. DALTON: The effect of the abolition of the Tea Duty upon the cost of living is exceedingly small. It has been estimated by the Colwyn Committee that a penny a pound on or off tea is worth only 2 per cent. in terms of the cost of living index number. Consequently, if the price of tea is reduced by 4d. a pound as the result of this remission, it will mean only 8 per cent. in terms of the cost of living index number. In other words, if the whole of this remission is passed on, it will not reduce the cost of living by even one point. That reinforces the argument that the food duties should be dealt with as a whole, and that they should all be swept away, including not only tea, coffee, cocoa and chicory but, much more important, sugar. A penny a pound off the price of sugar, in terms of the cost of living index number, is worth nearly two points on the scale, and unless we can get the Sugar Duty repealed as well, the effect upon the cost of living will be very slight. Putting it another way, it was estimated by the Colwyn Committee that the burden of the Tea Duty at 4d. a pound on an average family is something between 11s. and 12s. a year. That, of course, is a very small amount indeed in comparison with these other charges. We are glad that this burden should have been taken off—

Sir B. PETO: rose—

Mr. DALTON: I am glad that I am exciting so many hon. Members to desire to carry on a conversation, but I hope that I am not discourteous in not giving way, because if I did, we should never get on. My argument is that this remission of the Tea Duty is a very small contribution to the reduction in the cost
of living for the great mass of the people, but as a very small contribution, we support it. We would ourselves, however, have done the same thing four years ago instead of waiting until now, and we would have supplemented it with a large number of very substantial remissions which the Government have not given. The Financial Secretary used various figures designed to show that the direct taxpayer was bearing a very large part of the tax burdens of the country, and that the indirect taxpayer was being let off comparatively lightly. I was astonished at some of the figures which he quoted, and I should like to go into the matter a little more in detail. The hon. Gentleman went back to 1913 for a comparison. That is rather ancient history. A more instructive comparison would be to go back to the period immediately after the War—1918–19, and to compare the position now with the position as it was in the first year of peace. If this comparison be made, it will be found that, whereas the poorer section of the community are more heavily taxed now than they were then, the richer sections are less heavily taxed since that year. During this time we have had a succession of Coalition and Conservative Governments in power, with only one brief year of a Labour Government.
During this period the policy of the Coalition and Conservative Governments has been to increase taxation upon the poorer section of the community, and to diminish it upon the richer section. That can easily be proved by a few figures, which again I quote from the Colwyn Report. Comparing 1918–19, the first) year after the War, with 1925–26, the last year for which the Colwyn Committee collected information, and which represented the position after my right hon. Friend's Budget, we find the following. Taking a man with £100 a year, whereas in the first year he was paying 11 per cent. of his income in taxation, in the second year, in spite of my right hon. Friend's remissions, he was still paying 13 per cent. A man with £150 a year was paying in the first year 10.2 per cent., and in the second year 12.7. A man with £200 a year was paying in the first year 9.1 per cent., and in the second year 11.3. These figures, which
take account of both direct and indirect taxation, show that the poorer sections of the community were in 1925–26 paying a larger proportion of their income, even after the remissions of my right hon. Friend which, of course, considerably improved their position, than they were immediately after the War.
If we pass to a man with £2,000 a year, we find that whereas immediately after the War he was paying 28.1 per cent. of his income in taxes, in 1925–26 he was paying only 19.3. A man with £20,000 a year, who immediately after the War was paying 52.3, was in 1925–26 paying only 48.7. The richer sections of the community are paying a smaller proportion, and the poorer sections are paying a larger proportion, after seven years of peace than they were on the morrow of the War. That is an illustration of the way in which the tax system of the country has been handled by Coalition and Conservative Governments. The only lightening of this increased burden on the poorer section during this period was performed in 1924, when a large part of the food taxes was swept away. I do not attach very great importance to percentages of direct and indirect taxation, unless one is careful to explain what is included, and I gather that the hon. Gentleman shares my scepticism, although he endeavoured to use certain figures in such a way as to suggest that the direct taxpayer was paying at least his fair share, if not more. If one desires to make any comparison at all, a convenient plan is to take, on the one hand, Income Tax, Super-tax, and Death Duties, the principal direct taxes, and, on the other hand, the Customs and Excise, and leave the others out of account, partly because they are small and partly because their character and place in the classification is not clear.
Taking taxes on that classification, I find quite different results from those indicated by the hon. Gentleman. I find that in 1924–5, immediately after the introduction of my right hon. Friend's Budget—although, of course, the full effect of my right hon. Friend's reductions in taxation did not appear till the subsequent year, so far as the revenue was concerned—the amount of direct taxation was £396,000,000 and of indirect £234,000,000; that is to say, direct 63 per cent. and indirect 37 per cent. If we
now come to the last year for which we have completed records, 1928–9, we find that the direct taxation has fallen to £374,000,000 and that the indirect taxation has gone up to £253,000,000; and in terms of percentages, the direct percentage has come down from 63 to 56 per cent., and the indirect has gone up from 37 to 44 per cent. Let me add that the result of this examination would be even more unsatisfactory from the point of view of a proper balance between the two kinds of taxation, were it not for the double phenomenon to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred in his Budget speech, namely, the failure of beer and the harvest of death. Had it not been for the diminution in the consumption of beer and the increase in the death rate among wealthy people, the balance would have been even more adverse to the indirect taxpayer than it is.
Having examined some of the most recent publications issued from the Inland Revenue, my feeling is that, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we shall not get the national finances of this country into a satisfactory condition until we have made a very considerable re-adjustment of the comparative burdens borne by different sections of the community; and here I entirely agree with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham), which was referred to by the Financial Secretary. The hon. Member spoke at great length about the additions to savings that have been made in the last few years, and he said that they were calculated to promote employment. The calculations are very approximate, however, because unemployment, as we know, is still over a million and a quarter. Therefore, it would appear that mere savings are not enough to promote employment, and the hon. Gentleman will have to try some rather more carefully contrived policy than merely creating a state of affairs in which some people have such a large income that they cannot spend it all and, therefore, invest it in one form or another, many of the forms being of no direct advantage to the community at all.
The last Inland Revenue Report, to which I have referred, contains some very interesting figures, and I want to
look at some of them in relation to the burdens of taxation which are borne and which, in our view, should be borne, by-various sections of the population. First of all, we have figures in regard to incomes, and we have, in particular, the figures relating to the Super-tax. The latest figure in the Inland Revenue Report for Super-tax assessments is for the year 1926–27. Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do, and indeed better, from his intimate association with the Treasury officials, that there is a lag in the Super-tax assessment, and the last year for which we have information is 1926–27. But this is an interesting year for this purpose, because that was the year of the General Strike and the miners' lock-out; that was the year, in other words, in which there was a greater amount of poverty and misery and low economic conditions in this country than for many years before. None the less, we find that the increase in the number of large Super-tax payers was not checked in that year but went steadily on; and with regard to the richest section, those who have more than £100,000 a year, we find that there were in that year 147 such fortunate people, who divided between them £29,500,000 of income, which works out at an average of over £3,800 a week each. This fortunate group of people was more numerous and richer in 1926–27 than it had ever been before, and that is a fact which should make us reflect upon the great ease with which these huge incomes go on rolling up, even although the general economic condition of the country may be such as it was in that year.
The total amount of Super-tax charged upon the Super-tax payers as a whole—I take again the year 1926–27—was £54,000,000 on a total Super-tax income of £537,000,000. This works out at only 2s. in the £ on an average, in addition, of course, to the standard rate of Income Tax, on this great mass of super wealth. I submit that we have here a group which is not at the present moment paying anything like the full share that it ought to pay towards the revenue of the country, particularly when we take account of a further fact. We get figures for Super-tax, the number of Super-tax payers, and the amount of their income
over a period of years, and if that period of years is the period since 1923 or 1924, we have to take account of this further consideration, that the value of money has gone up, that the purchasing power of money has increased, and that the increase in the wealth of this section is, therefore, greater than would appear on the surface. Not only are there more of them, not only do they receive more pounds in a year, but each of those pounds has a greater purchasing power. The enrichment of the richest group of people in this country is very much greater than appears at first sight, and correspondingly their taxable capacity is very much greater also; and, in my view, there is an unanswerable case in favour of putting increased taxation upon this group of people, particularly since they have been enriched by the financial policy of the Government, the return to the gold standard, and the consequent fall in prices that followed that act of policy. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am delighted at the agreement of the hon. Member opposite, and I can only infer that the hon. Member is either very public spirited or else just a little below the Super-tax exemption level.
If I turn from the Super-tax figures of income to the very interesting Estate Duty figures, I find there also a tremendous heaping up of wealth and a tremendous heaping up of taxable capacity in the hands of a comparatively small section of the community. The Treasury, generally so full of knowledge and foresight, have habitually underestimated the yield of the Death Duties in recent years. I think it will be found that on six occasions in the past seven years the Treasury have underestimated the yield of the Death Duties, and on only one occasion has their estimate been in error in the other direction. The phenomenon which we are witnessing here is partly to be explained by the steady rise in the total amount of property liable to Death Duty, and particularly by the still steeper rise, with regard to the larger estates, it is partly to be attributed, I think, in the last year or two to the fact that some of the War-profits are beginning to fall in as objects; of inheritance. Some of those who during the War were not active enough to fight, but who were active enough to
enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the community, are now coming into the list of those upon whose estates Death Duties are paid. After a decent interval those who made money out of the necessities of their country are joining those whose names appear on our war memorials in all the towns and villages of the land. The result, from a revenue point of view, is very pleasing, but the result from the point of view of justice is that, in my view, something less is being done than should be done to get a further contribution from these war profits as they make their first transition to heirs who have done even less than those who built them up to deserve them.
I will just give one figure to illustrate again what is happening at the top of the table. In 1925–26, seven millionaires' estates were subject to Estate Duty, and of those seven estates one exceeded £3,000,000; in 1926–27, 10 such estates were taxed, of which three exceeded £3,000,000; and in 1927–28, 15 such estates were taxed, of which four exceeded £3,000,000. Last year—the detailed figures are not yet out—the Death Duties, stimulated, as I suggest, by the falling in of War profits of large amount, touched a new high level. For the first time in our fiscal history they went above £80,000,000 for the year, and I have no doubt that, when the full figures are brought out, the record of the previous year, of 15 millionaire estates, four of which exceeded £3,000,000, will be found once more to have been passed. Some of these statistics may appear to be dull. None the less, my belief is that too wide a currency cannot be given to the class of facts which I have been quoting. There is a tendency now to talk as though the whole country was poor and" could not afford expenditure in various directions, such as housing, better old age pensions, and so on. There is a kind of common form developing, which is encouraged by many newspapers, to speak as though this was such a poor country that it had to cut its coat very narrowly indeed and that it had to turn down all projects for increased social expenditure.
I submit that that is not borne out by the figures in the official publication of which I have been giving a sample to the House. What we see, on the con-
trary, is the natural working of the capitalist system under Tory rule. We see an ever widening gap between the increasing wealth of a small minority and the continuing poverty of very large numbers of our people. We see the forces of monopoly, unearned increment, inheritance, and compound interest piling up these large incomes and estates, and we do not see taxation increasing at the rate at which it should increase upon these socially created values and fortunes. It would be straying too far, even from the wide ruling which you, Mr. Speaker, have given with regard to relevance in this Debate, if I were to attempt to develop, even in the vaguest sketch, the alternative policy which my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side would propose to adopt, but I think it is sufficient to say that, whether it is in order to relieve, as it is our intention to relieve, the smaller incomes and the necessaries of life from taxation, or whether it is in order to develop a more adequate scheme of debt redemption, or to develop social expenditure on a more generous scale in certain directions which seem to us to be urgently necessary, for all these three objects we should take the view that increased taxation can and should be levied on the larger incomes and fortunes in regard to which I have been making one or two statistical observations.
5.0 p.m.
Now, if I may pass to the final point on which I wish to say a few words, we ought to look, when we examine the finances of the year, at both sides of the balance-sheet. We ought to consider, not only what is collected in taxation, but to whose advantage the expenditure inures, and at the present time we see that, as has been pointed out in previous Budget debates, the total yield of Income Tax and Super-tax is still falling below the charges for the internal debt of this country, even when the external debt is taken out. I am not passing away from this point, but I am rather illustrating it from another angle, when I quote the observations made by the Secretary of State for War when he was speaking in the Budget debate a few days ago and complained of our inclusion of the Oil Duties in the additions to indirect taxation which had been made during the life of this Government. The Secretary of State for War said: "You have no business to
include those Oil Duties among the new burdens imposed by this Government because the revenue from oil is all being spent on de-rating, and therefore it is not a burden upon anybody, because what you pay on oil you get back in lower rates." That was his argument. I may say in passing that the Oil Duties have been collected for some time and that the benefits of de-rating are all in the future, and hypothetical at that; but I leave that point.
I notice, according to this principle laid down by the Secretary of State for War, that it is very proper when you are considering particular taxes to consider also the way in which the money which you get from them is spent; and following out his line of thought with regard to oil and de-rating, I point out to the House that in the current year the estimates show a total yield from Income Tax and Super-tax of £297,000,000 as against a fixed debt charge of £356,000,000, and if we subtract from that fixed duty charge the £33,000,000 which is attributable to the American debt payments, you still get a total of £322,000,000 which represents the debt charge for the internal debt of this country for interest and sinking fund, that is to say, £322,000,000 as against only £297,000,000 which is being collected from the Income Tax and Super-tax payers. Therefore, following the line of argument which was authoritatively expounded from that Box by the Secretary of State for War—and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury who was sitting by and listening did not rise and contradict his right hon. colleague—it follows that this year again, as in previous years, the Income Tax and Super-tax payers, taken as a group, are getting back in interest upon their debt, or in repurchase of their shares through the sinking fund, all and more than all that they pay. If we are to seek their contribution to the revenue, we can find it only in the death duties which they pay when they pass from this unhappy scene to one which we hope may be less unhappy.
I cannot believe that this state of affairs will be allowed by the prudent electors, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, to become permanent. The Debt charges—and this is one of the gravest points of indictment against this present Government—whether in terms of principal or
whether in terms of interest, have hardly been reduced at all during the five unhappy years during which the Members of the present Government have adorned that bench opposite. Let me give a few statistics to prove what I say. In 1925 on the 31st of March, the principal of the debt was £7,646,000,000; in 1929 it is £7,501,000,000, a reduction in the principal of only £145,000,000 in five years. And let me say that the principal of the debt is a proper subject for statistical comparison. It is useless for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the principal of the debt is an unimportant thing. It is nothing of the kind. The principal of the Debt is the sum which has sooner or later got to be paid off by the taxpayers of this country, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer increases the principal of the Debt, as he has frequently done, by conversion of maturing debt at a discount—a practice strongly condemned by the Colwyn Committee in their Report—what he is doing is making a definite addition to the future liabilities of the country—adding to the total sum which the taxpayers have sooner or later to find in order to disengage themselves from this continuing burden. Therefore, I say that we are entitled to make comparisons of the principal of the debt at different dates, and in comparison with what it was when the present Government took office, there has been quite a derisory reduction brought about. We have paid money into the sinking funds, but in great part these sinking funds have been neutralised by the thriftless and unsound conversions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has carried out, largely due to the fact, to which he himself has been unwilling to face up, that the national credit of this country is at the present time very low indeed, and does not even yet stand on a 4½ per cent. basis.
If I take the interest charge, the position is even worse. Whereas in 1925 the annual interest charge on the debt was £308,000,000, in 1926 it went up to £319,000,000 owing to the action of the Government in provoking a General Strike and thereby disorganising the trade and commerce of the country; in 1927–28 it had come down only to £314,000,000, and last year, 1928–29, it still stood at £311,000,000, £3,000,000 a year higher than in 1925–26. This is a good example of the complete failure of the Government to deal with the Debt problem. The Debt
problem might invite a long digression, but all I wish to say here is that, the further we stand away from the War, the clearer two things become; first of all it becomes ever clearer that those who immediately after the War tried to persuade the country to undertake some great and courageous operation of debt repayment in order that we might not be weighed down all the years of our lives with the debt burden—and the party with which I am associated did take that line—were abundantly right, and that at that time in 1918, 1919 and 1920, we should have gone boldly forward with a big scheme for wiping off this burden and it becomes more and more clear as the years go by how very tragic was the loss of that financial opportunity owing to the fact that we had, not a Labour Government, but Coalition and Conservative Governments in office. That is one point—

Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. Member permit me—

Mr. DALTON: No, I cannot let this discussion degenerate into a mere conversation. That is the first point; and I will repeat it. The hon. Member is entitled to take credit to himself for having provoked me to repeat, and in more precise language, what I was saying. It is due to the financial ineptitude and the cowardice of the Conservative party and their Liberal colleagues of that time that in 1918 and 1919 vigorous and courageous steps were not taken by the Government then to wipe out this enormous burden which now hangs round our necks. There is no doubt whatever as to the meaning of that statement.

Mr. ALBERY: There is.

Mr. DALTON: If there is, it is not my fault, it is the fault of the intelligence of the hon. Gentleman. The further point which is borne in upon us more and more as time passes is this: that unless there is some speeding up of debt redemption and some great improvement in national credit which will permit profitable conversions to be made—unless these things come about, and come about soon, we are going to have as our most enduring War memorial in this country the continuance of this debt throughout the whole of this present century. War pensions cease with the death of the pensioner, but this War Loan scrip is
transmitted, under our laws of property and inheritance, beyond the grave from one generation to another. The prudent electors of this country, who have been referred to more than once during this Debate, will be very imprudent to allow this state of affairs to continue indefinitely throughout the future; and I say in conclusion that the way in which the Government has failed to face up to this problem of debt redemption and debt conversion is yet one more monument of their ineptitude, and yet one more evidence to us, who are endeavouring to win the ear of the prudent elector with the principles of sound finance and with principles of taxation which will be more in accordance with the scientific notion of adjusting taxation in accordance with individual ability to pay and not in accordance with influence in high quarters—it is one more evidence that, when the record of the Government as a whole is placed before the electors next month, their financial record will be one of the strong contributory factors which will bring about the downfall which they have so thoroughly merited by the way in which they have handled the affairs of this country.

Mr. E. C. GRENFELL: I listened with some satisfaction to the speech of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton), because it disposed satisfactorily to him and to his party of one of the chief criticisms which I wish to make of the Finance Bill and of the Budget. I have all along felt that in the Finance Bill the Chancellor of the Exchequer has possibly made a mistake in banking on the continuance of £80,000,000 a year from Death Duties. He agreed with my opinion last year that the fortuitous extra amount of £10,000,000 which he received in the previous year might not occur again; but it did occur again, and he received another £9,000,000 extra from the Death Duties, which helped him considerably to balance the expenditure. In introducing the Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used the simile of the Boat Race, and I will use one of a horse race. I thought he was working the Death Duty horse too hard—that it had won in two races, but, if he brought it out again, it might fail him. He has done so; but the hon. Member assures me—and he evidently speaks with all sorts of inside knowledge—that the Death
Duties are going to increase, and that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has probably under-estimated them this year, and that for the future they will be more than £80,000,000. Therefore, in view of the statement made by him, and the charming way in which he referred to the origin of the fortunes which contribute to these Death Duties. I withdraw all criticism of the Chancellor in this respect.
I still maintain what I said last year, when I did not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in not continuing the old Sinking Fund. That I still dispute; but, apart from that, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received too little praise for what I may call the non-advertising side of his last two Budgets. It would have been easy last year to make a Budget which, in view of a General Election last year or this year, might have gained him popularity, but in the most public-spirited way, as a good colleague, he backed up his associate the Minister of Health by giving him the wherewithal to carry out what I believe to be two of the most difficult schemes and yet two of the most proper schemes for restoring prosperity to this country. We have it on the authority of the hon. Gentleman opposite that the de-rating Bill and the other great Bill of the Minister of Health will not catch many votes. All the more credit for the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the assistance which he gave to the Minister of Health in the most loyal manner. I, too, have sufficient faith in the sense of the electors to believe that they will see the advisability of backing the Ministers who have introduced these Bills—Bills which even the other side had to commend, although they attacked the details—and that the voters a month hence will prefer the sound policy of those two Bills rather than believe in the fanciful promises, in party-coloured books, of the two parties opposite.
The Chancellor referred to the first lucid interval for some years, and that is so, because whether we refer to the lockout, as hon. Gentlemen opposite say, or strike, the Chancellor and the Government have had little opportunity of taking the requisite steps to pay off debt in the last few years. It is quite clear
that to float loans at a discount must increase the nominal amount of the debt, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) is as aware as anyone else that you can only float loans at a price and in a category which will be taken by the public. It is no good trying to float a loan at par or at 99 if the public will not take it, or if other loans are more attractive. The right hon. Member for Colne Valley is perfectly aware of the difficulty which the Chancellor has had in the last six or seven years, and I congratulate the Chancellor on the fact that he has been able, even at any price to fund the enormous amounts of maturing debt which he has funded during the last five years. Whoever fills the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer next year will find that for the first year for many years he has to arrange for the repayment of a smaller amount of debt in the next 12 months than at any time in the last six years, or at any time in the further five years after next year. It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer 18 months ahead who will have to face the provision of more than £150,000,000 a year conversion for four years, but the Chancellor in the next 12 months will have a fairly easy time. And that is due to the fact that the present Chancellor has been able in the last four years to provide these enormous conversion sums.
There is another thing for which I would commend the Chancellor although I think many Members on all sides of the House will disagree with me, and that is his having resisted pressure to continue the Trade Facilities Act. The Trade Facilities Act was an extraordinary Measure devised to meet a time of exceptionally bad unemployment, but now that we have reached a lucid interval I think it is necessary to curtail all these extraordinary Measures. If we are in for a lucid interval let us get back afresh to the old principles, and abolish these extraordinary methods of meeting bad times. One thing I regret is that the Government have not seen their way to abolish the Export Credits scheme. Last year I suggested that it would be wise to abolish these credits. I said they were doing little good, and that individualists or capitalists were able to do the work in better fashion and without loss to the Government. An hon. Mem-
ber opposite criticised that suggestion, saying that now, when the Government were at last building up a good business with export credits after many bad years, I, a capitalist, was suggesting that the individualists should reap the advantage. We find that this work has been conducted by the Government at a loss all these years; so far from having made a profit this year they are now making a loss of £90,000 a year, whereas in the previous year it was only £70,000. I believe the staff of that Department comprises over 70 people. That loss of £90,000 a year might now be given up, and the staff, which I presume runs into some expense, might be dispensed with, and individualists who have built up businesses and paying businesses on the same lines should be left to carry on the business without loss to the State. The hon. Gentleman who criticised me last year hinted that I had some interest in a company he referred to. Will he forgive me for saying that I had never heard of it until three weeks before I made that speech.
There is another point on which I would congratulate the Minister, and that is that he has resisted an attempt made in the Press by certain people—with the best intentions, they are wise people—to extend the list of trustee securities. Some years ago Mr. Chamberlain extended the trustee list to Colonial securities, and undoubtedly that has been useful to the Colonies and the Dominions. Now it is suggested by these gentlemen that this list should be further extended to include various industrial securities in England. I cannot imagine anything that would inure less to the repayment of debt than such a scheme as that. I have taken out the amount of trustee securities which existed in previous years. In 1900, counting railway debentures, counting the Colonies, and counting the British Government securities, the amount in which trustees could invest was £1,500,000,000. In 1913 this amount was raised to £2,000,000,000. In 1913 it had become £7,000,000,000, and in the present year it is £8,000,000,000. Can anyone pretend that with £8,000,000,000 there is not a sufficient sum in which trustees can make investments without opening the gate wider and diminishing the attraction of Government funds? Though the greater part of the increase I have men-
tioned was in Government securities, I find that trustee securities have increased since 1923 by £375,000,000 of outside securities. It was a plausible temptation which was put forward and the Chancellor is entitled to credit for resisting it.
There is another difficulty from which the Chancellor has suffered, and that is the increase in the value of short money last year. He is inclined to believe that short money may be cheaper in the present year. I am not in a position to criticise his sanguine expressions, though, personally, I doubt its being any cheaper for some little time to come. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton), who I regret is not here, made a long speech in which he stated that when he first came into the House he was shy and ignorant of finance, but that he had got over both difficulties. He seemed to think that there is a sort of money trust; that all the bankers get together to see how they can raise the value of money. He said the Bank rate was raised 1 per cent. quite gratuitously. We all agree that a rise of 1¼ per cent. in the value of short money has inflicted a loss of anything from £7,000,000 to £9,000,000 on the Exchequer. But that is not done by a body of gentlemen sitting round a green table because they like it. It is forced on them, and, as the Chancellor said, the rise in the value of short money which has so upset his figures was due entirely to occurrences outside England; it was owing to gambling in America. It is no fault of the Chancellor's and no reflection on British bankers that what is actually a calamity has occurred. I would join issue with the hon. Member's criticism and endeavour to prove that this country has better banks, and more banking facilities for the poorer classes, than any other country in the world.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: If people have no money to bank, what is the use of banking facilities?

Mr. GRENFELL: The hon. Member for Bridgeton referred in his speech to a bank, which he did not name, which was paying 18 per cent. to its shareholders. I looked to see if there were any banks doing that, and I found two or three. I found that in two cases the capital of the bank was, say, £100,000, and the reserve was £100,000, making £200,000, and, there-
fore, at 18 per cent., the dividend is only equivalent really to a 9 per cent. dividend. If you were to take the capital and reserve of a bank and were to invest them in 5 per cent War Loan, shut up the bank and merely take your dividends, you would then get 10 per cent. on your nominal capital. If you work it out you will find that that means 8 per cent. extra on the capital, or 4 per cent. on the capital and reserves was paid out for all the banking business that the bank has done. That bank has been in existence, probably, for 100 years. It has the experience of that period, and it has worked up its reserves, and for 4 per cent. extra, which it earns on that capital and reserve, it and others similarly situated carry on the whole business of the country.
I speak with some knowledge of the subject, because, although I am not a banker to-day, I was a bank clerk in my youth, and eventually rose to be manager of two or three small branches in one of the old-fashioned country banks. They are gone now; they have been merged in the big banks. It is often said that the banker to-day is less in touch with poorer people, less in touch with the district, than used to be the case. That is true to a certain extent, but the small old-fashioned banks, in which the partners or managers knew everybody in the district, have gone because they could not have continued under present-day conditions. Such a bank, operating in a small agricultural district, carried all its eggs in one basket, and if any calamity overtook agriculture that bank might possibly be ruined, so inflicting great hardship on the community. If the personal touch has gone since those banks were merged in the big banks, at least we have had a period of safety under the big banks, and, after all, safety ought to be the basis of the banking system.
As far as the facilities offered to the public are concerned, I have been astonished to note how, since I gave up my work in the banking world 30 years ago, the facilities have been extended. To my mind they have been extended far too much. So far from there being a money trust or a bankers' trust there is considerable jealousy between the banks. If one bank opens a branch in a small
town or village, the whole five sometimes follow suit. Instead of there being a shortage of accommodation to the public there is rather a superfluity. At the time when I left off doing banking there was one bank in England to every 13,000 people. To-day, I find that, instead of there being 104 small banks, there are only 17 and the number of branches has risen from 2,000 to 10,000. To-day there is a bank for every 4,000 of the population, men, women and children. 30 years ago I think the banking accommodation given to the public was very good, but to-day I am perfectly astounded at the accommodation provided. There are a great many money boxes and small deposits and every facility is given to the poor people.
I have also gone into the question of the difference between the advances made to people and the interest allowed on their deposits, and I find if you work out the balance sheet of any great banking concern you will find that it shows that their profit is under one-half per cent. on the side of their balance sheet. The banks now work on a very small margin and when we consider the facilities offered now to the public by the enormous staff employed by banks and the skill of the managers in investing their money wisely and encouraging trade on a margin of one-half per cent., then I think that some of the theories and schemes for nationalisation will be found to be full of great danger.
The other day, I happened to look at a list of five balance sheets of big banks, and I found that the number of shareholders was 310,000 and the number of clerks employed in one of these banking concerns was 13,000. The number of people employed on the staff of our banks is large and the courtesy they extend to the public is very great. I was asked the other day what has happened to the poor man's bank and why were there not such things at the present day. I have had some experience of the working of poor people's banks. I know of one which failed and another case where the depositors were finally paid. There were two or three other very large banks which endeavoured to manage their affairs with the greatest care, but either by offering too large facilities or too much interest they got into difficulties. Fortunately everybody was paid off through the sup-
port given by other banks. The poor man's bank which offers too large an amount of interest or facilities may cause far more harm and would lose far more than the one-half per cent. which is now earned.
I read in one of our leading weekly journals, which is well written, a criticism of the banks in which was stated that they were too safe, and that while many industries have crashed the banks do not. Surely the banks are the backbone and make for the stability of this country, and they compare most favourably with those in any other country. I am fully acquainted with the American and the Continental positions in regard to banking, and I say that the British banks by doing their own domestic business have conferred the greatest benefit on this country.

Miss WILKINSON: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if advertisements of banks are allowed in this House? I think the hon. Member is giving the banks a pure advertisement.

Mr. GRENFELL: I hope what I have said will not be interpreted as an advertisement, or as being out of order. I am not connected with any bank of deposit myself, and therefore I cannot be accused of furthering my own interests. I have gone into this question at great length, because I wanted to show that the difficulties in which the Chancellor of the Exchquer finds himself are not due to the banks. The increased rates were forced on the banks by the operation of the law of supply and demand throughout the world.
I will now turn to another subject. I believe I am in order in discussing certain foreign questions on the Second reading of this Bill. Within the last ten days unfortunately a remark was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) which seems to have created a disturbance. I do not understand that it was premeditated, and I believe it was drawn from the right hon. Gentleman by what he considered were the ill manners and discourtesy of the Government Front Bench. If it was discourtesy then it has been apologised for by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is within my own knowledge that in 1924 when the question of the Dawes Loan was under discussion, I
went personally to the Prime Minister and told him that as I had some particular knowledge of the subject, as the representative of the City of London, I felt that it was my bounden duty to put my services or my advice and any knowledge which I possessed on the subject at his disposal, and I told the present Prime Minister that I was doing so.
Further, the Prime Minister of 1924 did me the honour of consulting me occasionally. All credit to the Socialist Government of that day for the way they conducted this operation. For the last six weeks the leading men of the foreign countries concerned have been endeavouring to implement the work done in 1924 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley and the leader of the Opposition Something occurred last week—it was not necessarily anything which had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley—which upset the arrangement which was being discussed in Paris. The engine is off the line, and we should try to put it back again I suggest that for the remainder of this Session nothing should be said from either side of this House which might appear to give any cause for dissension at that meeting in Paris where the representatives of the various foreign countries have assembled. In 1924 what was done was never meant to be a complete job, and an endeavour is now being made to see if what was done then can be placed upon a sounder basis. Any chance word uttered here which might create a bad effect in France, Italy or in Germany would be a misfortune.

Miss LEE: I have not so far intervened in the Debates of this House, because I thought, considering that I was a new and youthful Member, it would be more fitting before making any comment myself that I should hear what the leading spokesmen of the political parties represented here had to say on the Budget which is now before the House. I must confess that this dying House is not exactly a place of inspiration, and I look upon myself more as a chip of the next Parliament which has made a rather precipitate arrival than as one really belonging to the present House.
I listened to the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. E. C. Grenfell) with interest. The hon. Member, I believe, is a director of the Bank of England, and
certainly he is a substantial shareholder in some of the wealthiest firms in this country. I feel that I must make some comment on what he has said. I notice that the hon. Member had nothing but praise to shower on the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the financial proposals for which the right hon. Gentleman has been responsible during the past few years. For the very reason that the hon. Member, representing the wealthy interests of this country, had so much to say in favour of the Budget, I, as the representative of a large industrial constituency in the North, have equally much to say, but of the very opposite nature.
I noticed that the hon. Member for the City of London congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon not having arranged his financial statement in order to gain electioneering credit throughout the country. I find that statement rather difficult to reconcile with statements which I find, not only in speeches made from all quarters of this House, but in leading financial papers and in papers that usually regard with disfavour the party to which I belong—I allude to such papers as the "Times" and the "Economist." I find that the "Economist" makes a statement to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order to have a prospective surplus and to create a favourable impression in the country, has over-estimated what he might reasonably expect from the Death Duties, the Stamp Duties, the Beer Duty and other sources of income; and he has seriously under-estimated the cost of the Debt charges which the Government will have to face. I make no comment on this. I prefer to wait until next year to see whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been justified in his forecast or not. But in the light of such statements it is rather difficult to understand why the hon. Member for the City of London wishes us to believe that nothing has been done by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put an unduly favourable impression on the Budget for which he is responsible.
I am not here merely to comment on those details. In listening to the Debates in this House, I have throughout been wondering how those things affect the great mass of working men and women
in the country. Is there anything in the statement which has been made which may lead us to believe that a glimmer of hope is held out to such people that more employment, better conditions of labour, or higher wages in the future than they have had in the past, will be the result of this Budget? The greatest indictment of this Budget is that it holds out to the great mass of the people of this country absolutely no hope that the years ahead will be any better or brighter for them than the years which have passed. I regret that, because, surely, there could be no greater opportunity than a Budget statement for the Government of this country, if they so desired, to do something to readjust the inequalities of income in this country.
I do not think that anyone so far has disputed the figures that have been given already from these benches, showing that, out of a national income of approximately £4,000,000,000, only some £1,600,000 is paid as wages to the workers of this country. That represents only two-fifths of the total income, and, surely, a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was genuinely concerned to improve the life of the people of this country would have had a very substantial margin, in the remaining three-fifths, in which to readjust the burdens of taxation. I discover, however, that the working women of this country are given, not the substantial readjustment that they were entitled to expect, but, instead, a copper thrown to them in the form of the remission of the Tea Duty, and, seemingly, some hon. Gentlemen imagine that this paltry thing, thrown to them in the last days of a dying Government, is going in some way to restore their feeling of confidence in hon. Gentlemen opposite. My experience recently, in talking to large gatherings of women in this country, is that, while, of course, we all agree that the remission of the Tea Duty is a desirable and long overdue change in our finances, they are saying that, if it had been offered four years ago by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they might have felt that he was genuinely concerned to do something for us; but to have to have it offered at this last hour, and to find that, in spite of all the poverty, in spite of all the need for money for social services, the Chancellor of the Exchequer can at the same
time spare £970,000 for the publicans and brewers of this country, is, I consider, a challenge, not only to the women, not only to the working people of this country, but to every man and woman who has any sense of honour, any sense of civic responsibility, any sense of fair play.
We say to hon. Members opposite that there is only one explanation of this Budget, and that explanation is that, in the eyes of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the people of this country are made up in this way—the great majority of them are fools, and the remaining minority knaves. That is the only possible explanation of such a Budget as has been put before us, and I can only describe it, and with it the whole policy for which the party at present in office has been responsible, as a mixture—let me choose my words deliberately—I can only describe it as a mixture of cant, corruption and incompetence. These words, I consider, require some justification. I will take the second of them, having particularly in mind the report of the chemical combine in this country, headed by Lord Melchett. I find that Lord Melchett, in making a statement to that company a few days ago, told them that they already have a dividend of over 10 per cent., that they have profits of over £5,000,000, that their profits are on the increase, and that, in spite of all that, in the next year they may look forward to the dividing out of an additional £200,000, which is their little share in the wonderful de-rating scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that not only this House, but the whole country, will realise what is meant by things such as that, that the present Government have abused the power entrusted to them, and that they have done nothing for those who most deserve relief at their hands. Let us give them all credit for their paltry little remission of the Tea Duty, but let us also remember that in this time of national stress and struggle, they have not omitted to hand over thousands of pounds to some of the wealthiest people in this country. These are some of the issues that will be settled in the next few weeks.
Before concluding, I cannot help referring to another section of the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the earlier part of his
speech he deplored the coal stoppage of 1926. He informed the House that the subsidy of 1925, and the subsequent trouble in the coalfields, had cost him £80,000,000. May I point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite that the interest on that money alone, even taking it at 5 per cent., a very modest rate, would amount to a sum of £4,000,000; and that sum of £4,000,000, which represents the interest on this money which has been squandered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—because the industry is not a bit better off than it was before—the interest on this money which has been spent by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in defeating the miners, would have been sufficient to give pensions of £l per week to every one of the 70,000 miners now over 60 years of age who labour in the coalfields. I put it to the House that that is not a matter of sentiment, but a matter of sound business. Hon. Gentlemen opposite profess at this moment to be concerned about unemployment. I put it to them that money spent in that way would not only have done an elementary justice to these aged miners, but would also have made what this Government has always so miserably failed to make, namely, a substantial contribution to the unemployment problem in the coalfields. It seems, however, that before unemployment, before poverty, before any of these questions become for this House more than a matter of fooling and buffoonery, the Government of this country will have to be changed.
In expressing my criticism of this Measure, which seeks to perpetuate the inequality of things as they are, which lacks even an ordinary sense of self-preservation, as it makes little or no provision for developing the resources of this country, and is allowing Great Britain to lag far behind in the race, while America, Germany, France and all the other countries steal ahead, I feel that these matters will never be treated seriously in this House until the Government of this country is changed. Although comfortable Gentlemen opposite may smile, and may be little concerned about these problems, they matter very intensely to Members on this side of the House, they matter very intensely to the great majority of our people outside, and I hope and believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in putting
before this House the Budget statement that he has, has made it absolutely certain that, when the Election comes, all honest, honourable citizens of this country will rise in revolt and hound from office this Government which has so misused its opportunities and its power.

Sir P. FORD: It is, perhaps, appropriate that a fellow-countryman of the hon. Lady who has just spoken should be the first to intervene next in the Debate and have the opportunity of congratulating her upon her courageous, spirited, clever and dramatic speech. She has so far moved me that, although I really rose to deal with one point alone, I feel tempted just to touch upon another. The hon. Lady made a very gallant attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. E. Grenfell), and there was also an interjection from a fellow-countryman of mine, the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), that, under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and his predecessors, the finances of this country were run entirely in favour of the rich, and that the man of small means who wished to be thrifty had no chances. I took the trouble to find out the figures that might meet the interjection of the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs:
What is the good of banking facilities when you have nothing to bank?
I would like to point out that the Savings Certificates, with accrued interest to date, amount to £480,000,000, and that, of that total, at least £250,000,000 is held by very small investors. In addition, something like £200,000,000 is invested in building and kindred societies, to say nothing of the Post Office Savings Bank. Let us, therefore, cut out the cant and get back to the facts.
6.0 p.m.
The point that I desired to make was this: I was rather annoyed to think that we were not to have the opportunity of dealing with all the matters in the Budget; there are two Bills. I do not take the view that the liquor trade is an unclean thing, and I do not know of any Government that has done so, unless it has been a parasite on damnation, which I think was the phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition. Tremendous revenues are derived from that
trade, and, if that trade is worthy of taking revenues from, you should see that fair play is given in the way that that revenue is levied. I was afraid that I should not be able to make the protest that I wanted to make, but the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) raised the very point that I wanted to raise, and Mr. Speaker ruled that he was in order in touching upon it. I do not want to do more than touch upon it, because it is not in the present Bill. I should like to state as briefly as possible what the grievance is. The on-licence holders in England and Scotland have had certain remissions on their licences. Those remissions have not been made in the case of the off-licence holders, but a concession has been made in England whereby they are allowed to sell small quantities, that is to say, half-bottles, of spirits. The Scottish off-licence holders say that that is not fair to them, because they have always had the right to sell these half-bottles, and, therefore, there is no concession to them. The reason why they have had that advantage over their fellow off-licence holders in England is this: In England, I understand, the bulk of the off-licence holders do licensed business and practically nothing else. In Scotland, the great bulk of the off-licence holders do the main part of their business in groceries and things of that kind, and yet both are assessed on the rental of the whole premises, and the licence they pay is in relation to that assessment. Consequently, the off-licence holder in Scotland is being assessed on property the bulk of which has very little to do with his licensed business. He is over-assessed. He did not object as long as his immemorial right of selling small quantities was allowed, but now that that concession has been extended to England he says: "Let me have one of two things. Either re-assess me, and only assess me for the purpose of licensing me on the proportion of my business premises which can be duly put down to my licensed trade or, if you will not do that, give me a less scale of licence." I wish we had been able to discuss that and decide it. We are going to the country with the concession made to these people rather up in the air. They do not know how it may be settled and, at any rate, they feel that there is
an injustice there. I felt that it was my duty, in the interests of justice, to make that statement clear. I think I have got it correctly, but I speak subject to possible correction.

Sir FRANK MEYER: May I add my meed of congratulation to the maiden speech of the hon. Lady? I do not think, in my comparatively short experience of this House, I have ever heard a maiden speech showing greater gifts of oratory, command over the House, and sincerity, than the one to which we have had the pleasure of listening to-day. May I refer to the subject of the gold standard, which is often raised by hon. Members above the Gangway. I believe it is their contention that the Government made a great mistake and inflicted a great wrong on the working classes by returning to the gold standard. There are only three ways in which the question of currency can be treated—either to return to the gold standard on the pre-War basis, or devaluate your currency and return to the standard, or have no standard at all and allow your currency to fluctuate. I think everyone will agree that to allow your currency to fluctuate is the most injurious method of all, especially to the working classes. When the value of the £ varies from month to month, the people who suffer most are not the capitalists, and those with large sums of money at their disposal, but the weekly wage earners, because the rise in wages which is inevitably demanded as the price of money varies is always later by several months than the variation in the value of the £.
We have the experience of foreign countries to show that it is the working class who suffer most from fluctuations in currency. I believe everyone above the Gangway will admit that. Therefore, we have only the two alternatives. One is to return to the gold standard on a pre-War basis, and the other to return to the gold standard on some devaluated basis. I should like to know whether it is the contention of the party above the Gangway that we should have returned to a standard lower than the pre-War basis. If that is their contention, surely that would put us very much on the same basis as foreign countries which have lowered their standard. France, Belgium, Germany and Italy have returned to a fixed standard, but on
a lower basis, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Snowden) stigmatised that process the other day by a very harsh word. If it is "bilking" for France to value her currency now at 125 francs to the pound, instead of the old basis of about 25, surely it would have been equally bilking for England to have restored her currency on a basis of 3 or 3½ dollars to the £ sterling instead of the position, on the pie-War basis, of 4.80. I should like to have at some time an authoritative statement from Members above the Gangway as to what, in their view, we should have done about this return to the gold standard and whether, if we had returned to a standard below the pre-War standard, we should not have been doing something equally dishonourable to what we are told France, and presumably other countries, have done.
In the course of a very interesting speech the hon. Lady referred to the Imperial Chemical Industries Company and pointed out the large profits it is undoubtedly earning, and the prospect of increased profits in the future. We grant her that, but we want to keep a sense of proportion. We want to realise that it is no good talking about profits of £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 without realising the size of the capital of the combine. It is in proportion to its capital that such profits must be judged. We also want to remember one or two other things. It is always assumed, when we talk of a very rich combine like this, or Courtaulds, or the Imperial Tobacco Company, that the vast majority of the capital is in the hands of a few very rich people. That is not so at all. Lord Melchett the other day said there were, I think, 150,000 shareholders, with an average holding of 200 or 300 shares each. That is a thing we want to bear in mind when we are judging whether it is a good thing that a company of this kind should earn large profits and distribute a dividend of 10 per cent. He also stated that, although this combine has been in existence only for about two years, already 850,000 shares are held by its employés. Therefore, we may assume that in years to come a very considerable proportion of its capital will be held by its own employés. Surely it is a good thing for the country that an organisation should be built up giving a great deal of em-
ployment and good wages. I do not think anyone will deny that wages in the chemical trade now and for many years past have been good. There are excellent relations between employers and employed. There are evidently opportunities for saving, in that the employers are able to invest their money in their own concern. All these things must be taken into consideration, and it is merely creating unreasoning prejudice to attack a company like that merely on the ground that it is earning very large profits and that, as the result, the shares are high.
I do not think it would be in order, even on this Bill, to discuss the question of rating relief and how far that is going to affect unemployment, but we must remember that no one in any part of the House was able to suggest a way by which rating relief, which everyone agrees should be given to depressed industries, should not be given to other productive industries. Amendments were put down, but were never carried to a Division. No one was able to suggest where you could draw the dividing line between a depressed and a prosperous industry, or a depressed and a prosperous area. As long as that was not done, unless you were going to deprive the depressed industries, and those on the border line, of that rating relief you had to give it to all productive industries. [Interruption.] I should be very grateful if the hon. Member would explain how it would be possible to make that differentiation. I should like, through the medium of the Financial Secretary, to convey my thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the concession he has made, for which I have pressed for some years, of giving permission to sell half bottles to off-licence holders. I have always done so from the point of view of the inconvenience caused to the public. May I also ask the Financial Secretary if he could give us the reasons, from the point of view of the public, why the distinction has been made that this concession is only to be granted to those off-licence holders who hold a justices' license? There are a great many off-licence holders, mostly wine merchants, who do not hold justices' licences, and I should appreciate some reason being given why these people, who conduct a perfectly legitimate and honourable trade,
are deprived of the benefits that are given to grocers and those who hold justices' licences.

Mr. MONTAGUE: One or two remarks made by the last speaker induce me to rise to reply to him. I do not profess to be an authority upon the gold standard I admit my limitations with regard to questions of finance and I am prepared to admit, purely for the sake of argument, that the restoration of the gold standard was a policy necessary to the stability and financial credit of the nation. But I think the real gravamen of the criticism that Labour has to make about the policy was, its precipitancy and the fact of its results being so unfair as between various sections of the community. I do not think anyone will deny that one of the direct results of that precipitate return to the gold standard was a depression in trade and an increase in unemployment, the burden of which falls upon the working people directly. Secondly, there is this criticism to be made. The effect of that restoration was that those people who enjoy fixed incomes—unearned incomes from interest and so forth—obtained the advantage of deflation in the spending power of their incomes, whereas the wages of working people came tumbling down rapidly.
Although it may be granted, for the sake of the argument—although I admit my inability to go very closely into the financial aspects of the case—that the restoration was necessary at some speed or other from the point of view of the national credit that surely is an argument in favour of other measures being taken by the Government in order to correct the unfair results of such a restoration upon the workers in the form of wages and also with regard to the subject of unemployment. I make that criticism by the way because, whatever may be stated in the House about stability and about finance, when we go down to a constituency where people are living in poor houses and obtain very low wages, it does not do for us to talk about intricate financial questions of that kind. They do not understand them, but they do understand the fact that they are getting low wages, that their lives are less secure and that there is a vast amount of poverty and unemployment in the country. I think that it is up to a Government which says that the nation must return to the pre-
War standard to, at any rate, do some thing to make the position fair as between the different classes. If it is good enough for the working classes to have to pay for the restoration of the credit of the country, it is good for other classes of the community to have to pay their share as well. That is our point of view on the subject, or, at any rate, some part of it.
I want to say something about a statement made from the opposite benches, and also made by a right hon. Gentleman on the Liberal side some time ago and obtained a great amount of advertisement, namely, that a large amount of the capital of the country is owned by very small owners, and that the poor people and the working people are capitalists. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Swansea (Mr. Runciman) who, I think, said that there are 15,000,000 capitalists in this country. This was said to be a defence of the capitalist system and a justification for conserving the present system of society. I would like to make this comment. After all, what on earth is there to talk about with regard to the amount of capital in the hands of the working class folk in this country! It was stated in a newspaper correspondence recently that if the possession of a pound or two in a co-operative savings bank constitutes a capitalist, then the man who owns a back garden is necessarily a landlord. Even the man who has some earth in a flowerpot may be said to be a landowner. There can be no argument against the Labour point of view concerning the distribution of income. Seventy per cent. of the total national capital is owned by less than two per cent. of the population. That is our criticism. Some people own their own houses, and many hundreds of thousands of the working class find it necessary to put a few pounds in the bank and to do the best they can to store up something against a rainy day. That does not alter the fact that the great bulk of the people of this country are non-owners. They are not, in any real practical sense, owners of the capital or means of production of the nation. These means of production are owned by a small number of the community and are used by that small number in order to extract profit, and to build up more and
more capital in the hands of the real industrial rulers of the community.
I am not going to make a speech upon any abstract Socialistic lines, and least of all do I want to indulge in what has been described in a recent Debate as soapbox oratory, but I think that it is necessary to point out that it is idle and useless to talk about the distribution of capital in this country. The people who own the) capital in this country and are effective capitalists are those who control the capitalist system. It is the system that we object to. That system, however much capital may be distributed, imposes poverty upon the vast bulk of the people of this country. It imposes unemployment because of the wrong distribution of income. The hon. Lady who spoke put that point very effectively. The reason that people are unemployed is because of the unfair distribution of the national income. The national income is distributed as far as the bulk of the population are concerned in very small amounts compared with the huge piling up of wealth and capital by a few people. Until that distribution is rectified, and until the people are able to bargain for what they are potentially capable of creating, there will be unemployment and poverty, and always the descending spiral of depression.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) thanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a concession and said he thought that it would be an advantage to the public to allow the retail by the off-licence holder of the half-bottle of spirits. I rise to point out to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the great hardship and the injustice which have been done to similar holders of licences in Scotland. The off-licence holder of Scotland, who is the grocer, is well known to have been the purveyor of a perfectly legitimate trade. For centuries he has been treated in exactly the same way as the on-licence holder. The Government have thought fit to give a concession as regards the licence duties of 25 per cent. to the on-licence holder but in the case of the grocer in Scotland who for centuries has had the same privileges of selling is entirely different from the off-licence holder in England, in that he has for a very long time been
practically the wine merchant of the people of Scotland.
The English grocer has got this concession from the Government, whereas in Scotland we have nothing, and it seems only equity that a perfectly legitimate trade carried on in Scotland ought to have the same treatment as the on-licence holder. I think that this is partly due to the fact that the Treasury has not had brought to their notice the practice in Scotland for so many centuries. It was in 1860 that Mr. Gladstone brought in the system of the off-licence holder in England, but in Scotland the practice has been carried on for at least 200 years. Therefore, I hope that when the second part of the Finance Bill is dealt with, the Treasury—and I hope the Financial Secretary will make a note of the point—will deal with the hardship which has been placed upon these people in that they have not had the same treatment or the same concession as those south of the Border. We in Scotland are jealous of any concession given to people in England and Wales which is not also given to the people of Scotland. I would further point out that the amount involved on even a 25 per cent. reduction for the off-licence holders in Scotland would only amount to a total of something like £14,000. I do hope that the Financial Secretary of the Treasury will look into the question, as there is real hardship.
Another point to which I would like to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary is the hardship with regard to many of our people who have worked in India and in our colonies. When they come on a visit after years of residence abroad they are charged Income Tax on their income from whatever source for the year in which they arrive in this country. Those planters and others who are working in the Malay States and in India, if they happen to come here within the last two months of the financial year, are charged British Income Tax on the whole of their earnings abroad for that financial year. It seems very hard on those who have worked abroad in the heat and trial of the sun to be treated in this way. Another point in regard to the assessment of Income Tax is that many companies employ men in India and in the Malays, which are the two countries of which I have knowledge, to
sell various articles on commission. This commission is subject to British Income Tax because it is held by the Income Tax authorities that because a business with headquarters in London or elsewhere in this country pays commission to its representatives out there, Income Tax should be deducted and paid to the Treasury. It is extremely hard that such a state of affairs should exist. We know of many cases of people living abroad purposely in order to avoid taxation. I have no sympathy with people who do that, but I have sympathy with people working in these countries, where the conditions demand tremendous exertion, who have to pay this Income Tax simply because they happen to be paid on a commission basis. I have noticed many letters in the papers on the subject, and I think that the Financial Secretary will be doing an act of justice if he will look into these particular cases.
The third and last case which I wish to bring to the notice of the Financial Secretary is one which, I think, he knows well. It is the case of those companies formed in 1925 in which the assessment becomes extremely hard on them, especially if they happen to have a bad year after, perhaps, two good years. I believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted that it is a case of hardship. I cannot see why the particular hardships, especially of these companies working in the Malay States, should not be treated with a certain amount of compassion when one considers that the Government were to a large extent responsible for causing the situation which has arisen. There is no reason why these companies should not be assessed on the income of the year in question instead of on the previous years. I merely draw attention to this matter because the question was raised last year, and it has already, by means of a very representative deputation, been brought before the Treasury. I hope that when the second part of the Bill is discussed, a concession of some sort may be given to these very hard cases.

Mr. PILCHER: I should like to emphasise everything that my hon. and gallant Friend has said on the subject of the new treatment—for it is a recent revision of the old treatment—of these Income Tax payers who are temporarily at
home in this country even for only a few weeks in the year. The very strongest resentment is felt in India and in Egypt at the new treatment, and I know that there is a very strong case indeed for a re-examination of the position. It does seem deplorable that when, on the one hand, we have a new organisation trying to attract people to this country, people whose home is not here, these operations of the Revenue authorities should really be almost driving people away from their natural home. I know that any revision of the latest document will be very much appreciated by British subjects who have to go and live overseas for the greater part of their lives.
I have intervened in this Debate to say something on the subject of the Tea Duty. There are some aspects of that duty which have not yet received detailed consideration. We have had an extraordinary speech from the Front Opposition Bench this afternoon, in which a good deal of attention has been paid to the Tea Duty. On the one hand, an effort was made to show that the remission of the duty was a mere bagatelle. It resulted, we were told, on the authority of the Colwyn Committee in a mere reduction of 8 in the percentage figure of the decline in the cost of living. We were also told that it meant very little in the working man's budget, but I would like to point out that the average of 3d. per week, which this remission of duty means to a man, his wife and three children, amounts, in the case of a farm labourer earning 31s. a week, to 1 per cent. of that man's entire income. It was shown in the same speech that the total contribution to the Exchequer made by such a person is something like 11 per cent. of his salary. Surely a reduction of 1 per cent. in such a budget is not a thing to be despised. Indeed, such an argument seems to come with a very ill grace from that quarter. How many times in these finance discussions have we not listened for hours to arguments from the Labour Benches suggesting that the time had come for the abolition of this duty?
The point which I particularly wish to put to the Financial Secretary is this. It was suggested by him that considerable relief was going to reach the working-class indirect taxpayer, as a result of the remission of the Tea Duty. Everyone
would like to make quite sure that such relief will actually reach the consumer. Is my hon. Friend quite convinced that this rather sudden, final abolition of the Tea Duty is really going to benefit the consumer? It will be remembered that there was a reduction of the duty of 4d. in 1924, and, for a time, there was a decline in the price of tea following that reduction. But the price recovered its old position in a very short time, and the consumption increased from 8.3 lbs. per person in the country to 9 lbs. per person in the country within a year or 15 months after that remission. I suggest that if such an increase in demand now follows this further remission, and there is every sign that it will, there may be considerable doubt as to whether the ultimate result will not be merely to keep up the price of tea, and a loss of £6,000,000 to the Exchequer will have been caused, with no certain gain to the consumer.
The total production of tea in the world is about 800,000,000 lbs. per year of which 420,000,000 lbs., or considerably more than half is consumed by this country. I am not clear that the sources of supply are capable of an expansion sufficiently rapid to catch up the increase of demand which is likely to result from the disappearance of the duty. There are one or two things which the Government could do to assist the expansion of the sources of supply and enable that expansion to proceed a little more rapidly than might otherwise be the case. Assistance could be given, for instance, through the Empire Marketing Board. If there is to be expansion, and it appears there is to be, we might make sure that that expansion takes place within the British Empire. I am not convinced that the Ceylon source of supply can rapidly expand but there is room for expansion in India, if encouragement is given by means of the Empire Marketing Board and in other ways. May I also point out to my hon. Friend that the remission of this duty involves a lose to India, in the value of the preference, calculated at roughly £1,000,000 per year. India having lost that preference, which she was promised for a period of 10 years, there is quite a good case for trying to help her and, if necessary, spending money to help her as a compensation for the loss of the preference.
I am still a little afraid that in the effort to keep down prices—because it is clear that the great dealers are trying to give the public the benefit of this remission—we may give a further incentive to that increase in the consumption of foreign tea, particularly Java and Sumatra teas, to which I alluded a year ago. My allusion on that occasion resulted in inquiries being made, and an attempt was made before a Board of Trade inquiry to find a means of keeping the home market for British tea only. That attempt failed because of impracticability. Now the danger reappears in a more serious form, and I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the position and ask him whether, through the Empire Marketing Board and by other means—possibly, for instance, through an improvement in the attitude of the Government of India to the recruitment of labour in India and by methods of that kind—something could not be done to keep this additional demand for tea inside the British Empire.
There is another point in this connection to which I would draw attention. A sum of £6,000,000 a year will no longer be collected in respect of the Tea Duty, and there will no longer be those vast stocks of tea in bond which have existed hitherto. The total value of the tea brought into this country each year reaches £35,000,000—possibly three or four per cent. of the total vast importation of this country amounting to £1,200,000,000. The sweeping away of all the administrative machinery necessary to the handling and watching of that trade, in so far as the Revenue Authorities are concerned, should produce a considerable economy, and I would press my hon. Friend, at the beginning of this protest, to make a serious effort to see that these changes do result in some administrative saving. In the last Budget we were told that economies in staffing to the extent of some 11,000 personnel had been achieved during the lifetime of the present Government, and, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that he was working for a further economy of 8,000 in personnel. Here there seems to be a real chance of economy in personnel, and I imagine that certain large savings will be involved in the disappearance of the big warehouses
in which the stocks of tea were kept. Oh the other hand, we shall no longer have the advantage of those exact statistics regarding the tea trade to which we have been accustomed. Since no tea will be kept in bond, it is clear that the handling of the trade will be confined to the trade itself, and we shall lose those statistics. It has been suggested in some quarters that this may result in a tendency to cornering and manipulation of the industry. I suggest that that is a possible danger which might engage the attention of my hon. Friend.
There is another and quite a different point which I take this opportunity of mentioning. A concession is being made to the railway companies in the matter of the Passenger Duty, and every thinking Member of the House appreciates this new attitude towards the railways and their difficulties. There is a growing realisation that more than one form of transport is necessary if this country is to hold its place in the competitive struggle. I appeal to my hon. Friend to consider whether, in making recommendations to the companies as to the way in which they are going to use this remission, he would bring before them the question of traders' tickets. These tickets, at the present rate, involve a serious burden on industry. I have here figures relating to traders' tickets in connection with an important centre in my own constituency, where we have one of the largest mineral export trades in this country. In 1889 a trader's ticket from London to St. Austell cost £59. In 1918 it was £97, and in 1920 £142, and it has since gone back to £97. I believe there is some logical explanation on the figure of £97, and that it represents a percentage increase on the pre-War basis. It might possibly be in the best interest of the railway companies to promote in every way they can cheaper travelling facilities for business purposes for the representatives of those great firms which bring them so much revenue. The particular industry to which I have just referred, with an export of 600,000 tons of minerals every year, is a valuable asset to the railway companies, and this might be an appropriate time to persuade the companies—even though it might involve some apparent temporary loss—to assist these great commercial concerns from whom they derive such a large proportion of their revenue.

Mr. TINKER: I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in what he has said about the necessity for ensuring that the benefit of the remission of the Tea Duty should reach the consumer. I appreciate the remission of the duty, and all I am sorry for is that it did not come sooner. I wish it had come three or four years earlier. I would, however, emphasise the importance of keeping the price down to the point intended by the remission of 4d. per pound. I want that 4d. to get to the people, and something ought to be done to see that sooner or later the traders do not take advantage of it. I do not know myself what the House can do in the matter but I hope the Financial Secretary will give the question consideration. There is another point arising out of the de-rating scheme to which I think the House has not given proper attention. The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer) said that nobody had produced a scheme by which it was possible to get back from the successful industries the relief that was being given to them under the de-rating scheme. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, in his Budget speech said there had been considerable controversy about the relief given to brewers, distillers and others and about getting it back, and he went on to say:
Here, again, it is our duty to help our weaker brethren, and not to place a stumbling block in their path. Luckily, there is a convenient method which does not man in any way the general symmetry of our rating reform scheme or the principle on which it is based. Manufacturers licence duties have now long been levied, though at very low rates, upon brewers, distillers and tobacco manufacturers. I propose to raise those duties so as to take away from these industries the equivalent of the relief they will obtain under the de-rating scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1929; col. 50, Vol. 227.]
Evidently the right hon. Gentleman had found ways and means of getting back from the brewers and distillers the reliefs which were given to them under the derating scheme and, if that be so, how is it that he cannot get back from the chemical industry for instance the £600,000 which has been given to that industry? That industry in fact has no more right to that grant and no more need of it than the brewers or distillers; and Lord Melchett, in dealing with the matter, said his firm were getting £200,000 per annum because of this re-
lief. I hope he will find ways and means of getting hold of that as he has done in the case of the relief given to the brewers. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury talked about national savings of £450,000,000 a year, and said that over five years, £2,200,000,000 altogether have been saved. I am quite at a loss to know what it actually means. Where does this money go? Who gets the benefit of it? The Financial Secretary spoke of it as being a great asset of the nation.

Mr. SAMUEL: The answer to the hon. Member was given by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) in his speech on 22nd April. I will read what the right hon. Gentleman said:
The other side is the side of industrial savings, that is, the amount which is available to-day for all kinds of industrial development calculated to increase employment. That was estimated by the Committee on National Debt and Taxation as something between £350,000,000 and £400,000,000 before the War, and it was thought that if allowance were made for increase in population and the rise in prices, the figure to-day should be perhaps about £600,030,000 and that the actual amount that we were saving in Great Britain was probably £150,000,000 per annum short of that total."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1929; col. 657, Vol. 227.]
That is a quotation with which I entirely agree. Perhaps allowing a little for worn-out assets we are saving £450,000,000 a year, as the Colwyn Committee said about five years ago, and there has probably in late years been an increase in the amount of annual savings since the Colwyn Committee made that pronouncement. I am making some diminution in my mental total calculations on account of the disaster of 1926 and, therefore, I will assume that there has been no annual increase during the years since 1924. I am content to leave the figure at £450,000,000 a year as the average for five years. I accept the figure of the Colwyn Committee quoted by the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh, given of £450,000,000 a year, and I multiply it by the five past years. That is how I get the total figure of £2,250,000,000 saved by the nation during the past five years and added to the national assets; or, in the words of the right hon. Member for Central Edinburgh are "industrial savings, that is the amount which
is available to-day for all kinds of industrial development calculated to increase employment."

Mr. TINKER: I thank the Financial Secretary for his explanation. What I am trying to emphasise is this, that I do not see any great benefits arising from these savings when there is so much poverty at the other end of the scale. If the nation is saving so much, how is it that there is so much poverty at the other end? If these savings went into circulation would they not help poverty?

Mr. SAMUEL: If the nation had not had these savings poverty would have been infinitely worse.

Mr. TINKER: I give the matter up. I must confess that I do not understand it; I cannot balance these immense savings and the terrible poverty at the other end of the scale. The Financial Secretary said that prudent people would be satisfied. There must be a lot of imprudent people in this country, because there are a lot of poor people. Everyone who votes against the Government will, I suppose, be dubbed imprudent by the hon. Member. I can promise him that there will be a majority against the present Government because of the way they have handled the finances of the nation. If they are all imprudent there must be some cause for it. The reason is the extreme poverty in the land during the last four years, brought about by the present Conservative Government. It has not been equalled at any other time in the history of this country. That is why so-called imprudent people will vote against the Government.
The Financial Secretary also dealt with indirect taxation and pointed out that people who paid direct taxation were penalised more than those who paid indirect taxation. It must be apparent that the person who has the wealth can pay, and should pay. The taxes should come from the people who have the wealth. Direct taxation does come from these people, from the Income Tax and the Super-tax payers, and I am hoping to see the time when there will be nothing but direct taxes, in which case the people will know exactly what they are paying. It has been said by a well-known statesman in this country that it
does not matter how you deal with taxation if you do it in such a way that the people do not know what they are paying. I want all indirect taxation removed and put on to direct taxation. Then the finances of the country will be kept up by those who are able to pay and the poorer classes will have a much better outlook than they have at the moment.

Sir B. PETO: The best proof that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has satisfied the House, and I believe the country, is the fact that he has disposed of his surplus in a way best calculated to help all classes in the country. The criticisms we have heard have not been in regard to matters in the simple Finance Bill we are now considering, but which are to be incorporated in a future Finance Bill, or the usual criticism about things which are not in either of these Bills. Some speeches have been made which I think want a little further reference. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Pilcher) who spoke with so much knowledge of the tea industry, but the repeal of the Tea Duty in this case does away with an opportunity of giving a preference to tea produced within the British Empire. It is not a question of the more costly China tea. There is the cheapest tea from Java, which is to-day a keen competitor with the poorer quality tea from India and Ceylon.
I appreciate the arguments I have heard for the complete abolition of the Tea Duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had either to sweep the Tea Duty away altogether or leave a small duty only upon foreign tea. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took the wiser course in this case. He has repealed entirely the Tea Duty, which has been asked for for years by Liberal and Labour Members, and it comes therefore with rather ill grace from the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Dalton) to try to prove that the remission means very little in the ordinary man's Budget; in fact, that it is not worth making at all. I wonder what sort of a speech the hon. Member would have made if the repeal of the Tea Duty had been brought in by a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer? He quoted the Colwyn Committee's Report and said that the figures given there showed that a remission of 4d. off the duty only meant
11s. a year to the domestic household of a working man with a wife and two or three children. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has already answered that point. At the time of the Colwyn Report the consumption of tea was much lower than it is to-day. It was then about 6½ lbs. per head; it is now 9 lbs., and, therefore, it is necessary to add 50 per cent. to the figures given by the hon. Member for Peckham in order to arrive at the correct value of this remission. It is about 16s. or 17s. per year in the ordinary working man's household. That is a very different figure; and it is a very substantial figure. In many working-class homes the value of this 4d. remission will be at least £l per year.
7.0 p.m.
The hon. Member went on to argue that the value of the remission was trifling and that what the Government ought to have done was to remit the duties on sugar, cocoa and coffee. He emphasised the value of a remission of the Sugar Duty. As a matter of fact, the working classes gained enormously last year by the fact that the Sugar Duty was maintained and altered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Finance Act. The House will remember that when we were debating the last Finance Act we had a speech from the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) deploring the terrible state of unemployment in his constituency owing to the gigantic importation of refined sugar into this country and the consequent paralysis of the refining industry. He pointed out the enormous number of his constituents who were walking about doing nothing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an alteration in the Sugar Duty by giving an advantage of about one farthing per pound on sugar that was imported raw—

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners; The House went; and, having returned, Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to

1. Army and Air Force (Annual) Act, 1929.
2. Llanelly Corporation Act, 1929.
3. Torquay Cemetery Act, 1929.
4. Corn Exchange Act, 1929.
5. South Suburban Gas Act, 1929.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir B. PETO: I was just dealing with the question of the Sugar Duty, on which the hon. Member for Peckham told the House that its remission would have been of much more value to working-class families than the remission of the Tea Duty contained in this Bill. I say that the effect of the differentiation made in the last Finance Act, amounting to a farthing a pound, has been almost miraculous. It has reduced the imports of refined sugar by 200,000 tons a year; it has increased the imports of raw sugar by half-a-million tons a year; it has reduced unemployment in the refining centres, and, the consumer has received, not only the farthing a pound promised for a period of two months, but also another reduction of a farthing a pound. Sugar is selling at a halfpenny a pound cheaper, and we are producing it in this country to the immense advantage of those people employed in the refining industry. In other words, cheaper sugar is being sold, in the manufacture of which British labour is employed to a great extent. The hon. Member for Peckham deplored that we had not entirely swept away the Sugar Duty. I say that, in dealing with the Sugar Duty, the remission which the Chancellor made last year has done more for the working class of this country than any benefit which they could have received from the complete remission of that duty.
I want to make one reference to the speech of the hon. Member for West Islington (Mr. Montague). He belittled the amount of the savings of the working classes and poorer people in this country, which were referred to in a speech earlier this aftenoon. He said that it was absurd to say that a man who only owned his back garden, or a man with a small deposit in the Co-operative Society or the Savings Bank had joined the capitalist class. That line of argument is like rejecting a seed because it is not a tree. We are only beginning. I foresee an enormous development of capitalism in this country, and I am quite sure it is on those lines that we shall see a sound development, and not on the lines, advocated by the hon. Member for West Islington, of a general distri-
bution of the existing pool of wealth Not only is that utterly impracticable, but it has been shown by Sir Josiah Stamp that, if the whole wealth of those who possess more than a certain sum was divided up, it would produce a ridiculously small addition to the average weekly budget of a working-class family. That shows the fundamental difference between our point of view. The point of view of hon. Members opposite is to say that you will have no sound finance, no cure for unemployment, no improvement in the conditions of the working classes of this country until you sweep away the whole of the present system. That argument appeared quite clearly in the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for North Lanarkshire (Miss Lee). It was ably dealt with in the speech of the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Sir F. Meyer), who pointed out how deplorable it was to use a line of argument which practically says that it is a shocking thing that a great new industry like the chemical industry should distribute a dividend of 10 per cent. I might add that a very large number of shares in that industry are owned by the workers themselves.
If you look to America, you see an enormous development there, even in the last eight or nine years, in the holdings by the working classes in securities of all kinds, and you see even the creation of their own banks to carry on industry. It will be quite clear to any hon. Member who studies these subjects that it is on such lines of a wider distribution of a new production of wealth and the assistance of all classes working together that we shall attain an increase in the national revenue which will enable Chancellors of the Exchequer in the future to reduce the burden of taxation upon the individual and upon industry. I felt that on this question of the Tea and the Sugar Duties it was necessary to correct the figure given by the hon. Member for Peckham and to show that the real advantage to the working class family is very substantial. Taking this Bill as a whole it has met with no criticism from the House. No one can suggest that any party in the House is prepared to divide against the Bill or any Clause of it. That is the best possible proof that the Chancellor has dealt with the Surplus that he has at his command in the best possible way in the interests of all classes.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Baronet, I suppose, has now-rejoined the shortly-to-be-attenuated ranks of the Conservative party, and the only comment I have to make on his remarks is that apparently the brilliant speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Lee) so dazzled and fascinated him that he missed the whole point of the hon. Lady's reference to Imperial Chemicals. Her complaint was not that they distributed 10 per cent. on a very large capital, but that under derating this great monopoly received a gift of a large sum torn from the general ratepayers and taxpayers of the country. That was the point of the brilliant and fascinating speech of the hon. Lady. I agree with what the hon Baronet said about the encouragement of thrift. We want people to get a little capital put by for a rainy day, but we object to one man bequeathing £1,000,000 or more to a, perhaps, ne'er-do-well son, with all the power of the use and tyranny of that unearned wealth. That is the great difference between us. The hon. Baronet stands for a system which provides a wealthy privileged class, by inheritance, and we do not.
I wish to add to the protest already made against the unconstitutional and vicious act of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in introducing two Finance Bills. My constitutional soul is ravaged. It is not only unconstitutional, but unparliamentary. The hon. Baronet apparently is pleased at the abolition of the Betting Duty, but I have a protest to make against what has taken place. To differentiate between different telephone users as a class and to put a £40 tax on a little struggling bookmaker is a most unfair procedure. What I really rose to say relates to the Railway Passenger Duty Clause. I was astonished at what we were told by the Minister of Transport to-day art Question time. It was bad enough coming to some unwritten agreement, some gentlemen's agreement, with the railway companies, that the money they received, capitalised to the extent of £6,500,000, should be expended on the improvement of transport facilities, but the Minister admitted, with regard to level crossings, that he had seen no plans, that he did not know what the companies were to do or when they were to do it. The railway companies may delay for years before they use this capital sum. They
may put the savings to general revenue and not expend the money for years. What is the use of this £6,500,000 scattered over the railway systems of the country? The railways have a capital value, I believe, round about £2,000,000,000. What improvements can be made? That improvements are needed is admitted.
Take the case of Hull. We have for years been pressing for the removal of half-a-dozen level crossings that are checking the development of our city and causing delays and loss. We Save at last come to an arrangement with the St. Davids Committee and the railway company concerned and the City Corporation. The companies are putting down £100,000 for the purpose, but nothing can be done until a Bill has been introduced, and that cannot be until a new Parliament is in being. To that great work of freeing the city the railway company will give only £100,000, and the rest of the money, the greater part of £1,000,000, will have to be found by loan. We have a far greater need, and that is a railway means of crossing the estuary of the Humber. A generation ago, in a more venturesome age, when the companies were more prosperous, a Bill went through the House to enable us to construct a tunnel under the Humber. That scheme would absorb the whole of the £6,500,000. The father of the hon. and learned Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Grotrian) is honourably remembered in Hull for the great part he took in this matter. But the reactionaries in another place threw out the Bill by a handful of votes. We have progressed a good deal since those days, and whereas a railway means of Crossing the river is required, we also need a means of taking motor-cars across.

Mr. SPEAKER: This is really carrying the discussion too far on a Finance Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was only using an illustration to show that in this particular part of Yorkshire the whole of the £6,500,000 could be expended on a double road and railway bridge or tunnel. The sum is a mere drop in the ocean compared With what is required in transport alone. As to Clause 3 of the Bill, we welcome it as a starving man would welcome a ginger biscuit when what he really wanted was a good beefsteak. Clause 4 repeals the
Tea Duty. Just after the information became known that the duty would be repealed, my wife was in Hull, going about amongst the working-class households, and she was told the following: That the very week-end when the duty come off cheese went up a 1d. a pound, flour 2d., and the rates 7d. or 8d. or 9d., and the unfortunate working-class housewives were 6d. down on the transaction. A lot of use that is! Those people were not talking politically, but as the mother of one family would talk to another. They were talking economics, not politics. There you have a little picture of what those boasted concessions of the Budget are. The people who control food through their rings and monopolies and mergers and cartels see that the little extra spending power of the people goes into their pockets. I am, talking, not of the retailers, but of the great wholesalers who control the price of food at its source. Until we can have some really effective method, through a Food Council with enlarged powers, for example, the effect of these concessions will be lost by the people who need it most.
I must say a word about another proposal in the Bill, which, apparently, was drawn up at the last moment without preparation or study. I refer to the bagatelle of £30,000 thrown to the fishing industry. I have not noticed that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South-West Hull has congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer about that yet, and the reason is that to the trawling industry it means very little indeed. The bulk of it will go to Scotland, and the English herring industry will get practically nothing.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: We shall get our little bit at Hartlepool.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Nothing whatever. When the hon. Member looks into the matter and sees the trawl owners they will bear out my statement. The money is to go to the exploration of the sea. But that is going on all the time now. It is like a man who, having an ornament on his mantlepiece, suddenly produces it and says to his wife: "Look what I have bought you to-day, my dear," and he gives it to her. This is mere window-dressing. It is something that has been in the shop all the time,
but it put into the window to make those outside think that the stock has changed. Of course, the exploration of the sea is a great scientific work and is valuable. The Scottish fishermen are to get something. As for the unfortunate fishermen of Devon and Cornwall, the in-shore fishermen who gives us the recruits for the Navy and the lifeboats, whose living has been torn away from them by the War and other recent developments—there is very little for them. The £30,000 distributed as is proposed is of very little use to the fishing industry. I have pleaded on many occasions for help for this industry, but have been disappointed.
As to the Budget as a whole, it is to me most disappointing. There is no imagination in it. There is nothing in this Bill to help employment or trade. There is nothing on the grand scale, nothing worthy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, I thought, in his last Budget would produce something that succeeding generations would talk about. I thought he would be remembered as a man who had gone outside the beaten tracks of politics and had found something that would give encouragement to the struggling people, who are trying to work through post-War difficulties and the long-continual trade slump. I can assure hon. Members opposite that if they pretend that we on this side welcome an increase in unemployment, they do us a very great injustice. We want to see the trade of the country improve and men getting to work, whoever gets the credit for it. The proof of that is the fact that again and again—

It being half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS under Standing Order No 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr. AMMON: We have no intention of dividing the House against this Bill, because there are many things in it which are necessary for the good government of London and which irrespective of party, we desire to see carried into effect. Whoever is responsible for the Bill will, I hope, give us some information about what has happened with regard to the London squares and enclosures, particularly with regard to the report of the Royal Commission which was made some time ago. There are other things which one would like to see mentioned in the Bill, but probably you, Mr. Speaker, would not permit us to refer to them at any greater length. There are one or two matters in the Bill, however, about which I would like some further information, particularly in regard to the proposed extension of the tramways. It will be within the memory of the House that a short time ago a traffic Bill passed through this House. It was very much in the nature of a blank cheque to the traffic Combine of this city. It was in the vaguest terms and meant the handing over of the tramway system largely to the private traffic Combine. There is a proposed extension of the tramways which I should very much welcome, particularly if it mean the linking up of the north and south systems, but the House has a right to be informed whether this means an additional amount of capital to be expended at the expense of the ratepayers of London, and then to be handed over to the Combine and in what respect it is connected with the Bill that has already passed the House.
Another point is the seemingly unnecessary delay in the proposed construction of Lambeth Bridge. I cannot recall how many years ago authority was given by this House, and confirmed in another place, for the London County Council to proceed with this construction. We now find after this long lapse of time that they are asking for further powers to acquire further properties. Surely, it is dilly dallying to an extraordinary extent that they should have waited so long before coming for this very necessary permission to carry forward this structure. It is to be regretted that there is no reference to the proposed Charing Cross bridge, to which, I imagine, there will be no opposition in this House or
the other place. Certainly the Council seem to have been very slack in that respect. The only other point to which I want to refer is that of the Sadler's Wells Theatre. A paltry £1,000 seems a very miserable contribution to be given by the London County Council, by an authority whose penny rate produces something like £250,000. At any rate, they might have made a bigger contribution, and shown a broader spirit by taking a step towards the establishment of a municipal theatre. I have no wish to delay the passage of the Bill, but the House has a right to be informed on some of these points, particularly as to how much longer the Council intend to delay the bridges, and as to what is their position with regard to the proposed tramways extensions and the traffic Bill which passed this House, and will soon come back from another place.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: I would like to raise two points on this Bill. The first is on Section 27, which concerns the power of the Council to take land. I and a large number of other people in London are a little disturbed at the way that the London County Council in taking wholesale powers either for road widening for housing schemes, or for other schemes of every kind, are taking away the few open spaces that we have left in London. The present position in London as regards open spaces is rapidly becoming worse, and unless we have some assurance from the County Council on such an occasion as this that when they are going in for these schemes they are considering very seriously the need for open spaces, and particularly for playing fields, it may be too late about 10 years time, when the whole of London, and particularly central London, is built over. About a month ago an interesting survey was presented to one of the committees of the London County Council in connection with the question of playing fields and open spaces. The survey shows that in Central London, within 10 miles of Charing Cross, there are about 18,000 acres of open spaces and 13,000 acres of playing fields, a total of 31,000 acres. At the same time, on the authority of the National Playing Fields Association we want, in London alone, 57,000 acres for playing fields. We also have in this survey the fact that there
are suitable sites for only 32,000 acres left in London.
I am a little anxious about the situation because of what is occurring in my own constituency. In North Hackney recently the County Council, under the compulsory powers of their 1925 Housing Act, have taken steps to acquire a certain plot of land. Their first idea was to take a plot which not only had very few houses on it, but included a large tennis club and a bowling green. I give to hon. Members the fact that that bowling green belonged to the local Conservative Club. This large tennis club is after all a playing field, and if the London County Council had the intention, as they did, of building over it, it shows that they were not taking this problem to heart as they should do. As a matter of fact the scheme has now been slightly altered, and the tennis club has been left out. They intend, however, to take a certain number of houses with large gardens, and to build on the sites. There are few of these houses with gardens left within 10 miles of Charing Cross, and they should, if possible, be left, because we have little enough breathing space as it is, and few enough trees in London; and unless we protest against this kind of thing, they will be built over, and the chance of preserving open spaces, trees and gardens in London will be gone. We know that the County Council take these spaces because it is much easier to displace only a dozen families rather than a large number in some slum area, but it means that these open spaces will have gone for ever. I hope that the County Council are taking note of that, and particularly of the necessity of preserving them either as playing fields or as squares where we can get a certain amount of light, sunshine and air in inner London.
The other point which I wish to raise is on the question of flooding. A Section in the Bill deals with the prevention of floods, and I hope that under that Section the county council are considering the flooding of the River Lea. Every year the River Lea floods in North London and a number of people have a most uncomfortable time. We are told each year that something will be done about it, but nothing is done. I believe that something will be done, because the question of the flooding of the Thames
has come before the country so vigorously of late years that I think the whole question of the prevention of flooding will be considered, and I hope that the county council will be able to say that the flooding of the River Lea is also being considered, and that adequate works are put in hand to prevent it. It is not a big job and could easily be done, and it would have a great effect on those people who are flooded year after year.

Mr. GARDNER: While not opposing the Bill, I think that I am entitled to enter a protest because the London County Council, the greatest municipal authority in the world, are seeking powers which are not adequate for the purpose for which it is proposed that they should be used. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) referred to the River Lea. I will refer to the River Thames. When the River Thames flooded the neighbouring constituency and part of my borough in 1927, two young women were drowned, and the London County Council served notices under the Act of 1879 for the repair of walls to their original height, although the flood level in 1927 was actually four inches above that height; under the Act of 1879 they could do nothing else, and in this Bill they are not taking any powers to remedy that. That is a very serious thing. The Minister of Health called a conference of all the riverside authorities; there was a tremendous outcry about the loss of life and property, and one would have thought that after that conference the first thing that the London County Council would have done in seeking new powers would have been to make sure that, in the expenditure of money on riverside defensive work, powers would be secured to prevent a recurrence of the flooding.
It is true that the greatest flood previous to that of 1927 was 18 inches below the present level; it is likewise true that, in converting fields into towns, where the river used to overflow is now built upon, and the volume of water flowing into the Thames is very much higher, so that in the event of a recurrence, there is no reasonable guarantee that the flooding might not actually rise a foot higher than on the last occasion. Although the property owners, local authorities, build-
ing firms, wharfingers up and down the Thames are asked to make up the riverside frontiers under the Act of 1879, nothing is being done to cope with a possible contingency in the future. I think the county council have been overlooking this question, more particularly as I know that their attention has been drawn to it, and I had hoped to prevent my own council paying a sum of money which they are demanding for the repair of a wall on the ground that, having spent the money, there would be no safeguard.
I wish also to mention the question of superannuation funds. If there is one anomaly in London, it is the innumerable funds which exist in connection with the borough councils, and if the London County Council want to give a common service with advantage to the whole County of London, this is one of the services they might render with the greatest possible advantage to all concerned. I think they might in this Bill have made arrangements whereby every individual employé of a borough council, when he wished to change his post from one council to another, would know, when he was going to that other council, that his superannuation allowances would be the same. The position to-day, in the case of a man who wishes to change his employment in this way, is that the council that wishes to employ him has to take into consideration, in fixing his salary, whether or not it should give a higher salary to compensate the person concerned for the lack of the uniformity which ought to prevail in the matter of superannuation. I hope that whoever is responsible for the County Council in this House will take both these points into serious consideration and give me a reply upon them.

Mr. SCURR: I feel particularly fortunate to find an occasion in this House when at any rate one hon. Member opposite has truly represented the opinion of at least one of his constituents. The hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) has raised the question of London squares and enclosures, which I had the honour of being the first to bring before the attention of this House by attempting to promote a Bill on the subject some time ago. Since then we have had the appointment by the Prime Minister of a
Royal Commission, which has reported, but the Government, I presume, have not had the time to promote legislation on the subject. I feel that this is beyond everything a question for the London County Council. It is a London question, and the danger of the squares being built over is a very real danger. I am constantly reminded of that fact whenever I pass Mornington Crescent and see that tobacco factory there, and whenever I go on the Euston Road and see that even such an excellent body as the Society of Friends has destroyed Ends-leigh Gardens by building over them. I hope the Council will at any rate prevent building on the squares that remain, and leave it to the future to decide what should be done with them.
This Bill to a certain extent gives us an opportunity to review the policy of the London County Council in regard to London improvements, and there are two matters with which I want to deal, one of which may seem small, but I do not think there would have been the slightest opposition from any part of this House if it had been put into the Bill. The Council have obtained powers in their model dwellings and tenements for the compulsory lighting of stairways, which is very important, but in many of these buildings there are people living who are old and infirm, there are cripples, and there are young children, all or whom have to go up and down these stairways, yet the provision of rails in these places seems to have been entirely overlooked by everybody. Representation has been made, and particularly by the Metropolitan Borough Council of Shoreditch, where there is a large number of these buildings, calling attention to the necessity of this question being dealt with, but nothing so far has been done. There are also the general improvements which are mentioned in this Bill, and I hope the Minister of Transport will have something to? say to the London County Council on this question of a condemnatory nature. The London Traffic Advisory Committee and the Minister have been constantly bringing before us the necessity for improvement at the Elephant and Castle, and everybody knows the tremendous traffic block that there is there and the consequent danger to pedestrians and others, but no provision is made to deal with that question. Ow-
ing to the fact that the London County Council have to come before us in this way, I think it is necessary for Parliament to draw attention to these omissions on their part.
In regard to improvements generally, the London County Council are spending a certain amount of public money in buying land at very high prices, particularly in the central parts of London, where some improvements are absolutely necessary. One result of those improvements is, of course, to improve the value of the land of all those who are on the borders of the improvements, and I certainly think that Parliament ought not to allow these things to pass without those persons who receive the benefit of the improvements making some contribution towards the cost thereof, instead of the whole cost being thrown on the ratepayers.
My last point is with regard to the totally inadequate contribution which is being made by the Council towards Sadler's Wells Theatre. Everyone knows the remarkable work which has been done by the Old Vic, and while we may argue with one another about the merits or demerits of a municipal theatre, it is a custom in this country to proceed, in matters like this, by voluntary methods at the beginning. These methods continue until the time comes when it is impossible to raise the necessary means, and when the thing is valuable the community has to step in and take control. So far as all the best sides of the municipal theatre are concerned, these have been given by Miss Bayliss at the Old Vic, and to extend these to the North side of the river, which is sometimes very much neglected in the matter of improvements, is, I think, a good thing indeed. But out of nearly £250,000 which is needed, for the London County Council to put up a miserable £1,000 is a disgrace to a body of that character. I sincerely hope that when the Committee upstairs considers this question it will see the inadequacy of this sum and, if it has the power, increase it, in order that there may be a worthy contribution from the citizens of London towards this work, to which, I am sure, not a single one of the four-and-a-half millions would object.

Mr. TASKER: The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) conveyed the assurance to my hon. and gallant Friend the
Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) that he had pleased him, and perhaps my hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Mile End, who lives in North Hackney, will give the necessary support to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Hackney towards the end of next month. It has been indicated that no Division will be taken against this Bill, and I am glad to find such a reformation in spirit on the benches opposite, because opposition to this Bill was promised in the Debate at the London County Council, and the son of a former Prime Minister said that whatever Bill was promoted by the council would be opposed by the Socialist party in this House.
This is the first opportunity I have had of indicating my resentment and indignation at the aspersions which have been made against hon. Members on this side who are also members of the London County Council. It will be within the recollection of the House that we have been charged with being interested, either legally or financially, in the affairs of the Traffic Combine. The hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) touched upon it, but did not go so far as his hon. Friends did in the last Debate. I wish to assure the House that neither now nor at any time have I, as a member of the London County Council, been interested in the Combine in the slightest degree, nor have any of my relations or friends, so far as I know, and it is ridiculous and nonsensical to suggest that we want to hand over either the present tramway system or the extension of the tramways referred to in the Bill.

Mr. MARCH: Why do it then?

Mr. TASKER: There has never been the slightest intention of so doing; and it was a gross and offensive misrepresentation of the facts to say that there was any such intention. It is what the Chancellor of the Exchequer would term a series of terminological inexactitudes. That, I suppose, is a Parliamentary expression, but I generally refer to it in shorter terms, and I can only imagine that anyone who believes such a stupid assertion must be a first-class nincompoop. Reference has been made to London squares. The only open spaces
lost are Mornington Crescent and Endsleigh Gardens. The council were quite impotent unless they exercised their powers under the Town Planning Act, the effect of which would have been to purchase those open spaces at the market price, and then to sterilise them. This would not have given the people of London the opportunity of using them, and all that would have been done would have been to prevent people building on them. There is some limit to the capacity of the London ratepayers' pocket.
One of the reasons why London squares may he built over is because of the infamous persecution which emanated from the Liberal benches principally, supported by the Socialists, who have maligned and held up to ridicule the landowners in London. Town planning existed in London long before the Socialist party was thought of, and the people responsible for the best town planning in London were the great landlords of London. Anyone who knows London and recognises the work of those great ground landlords who laid out London's squares knows that they did more for town planning in London than the London County Council are likely to do in our lifetime. Hon. Members can look at any street where there are forecourts, and they will find it is an invariable rule of the London County Council that, if a man seeks to build on a forecourt, he is required to surrender two-thirds of the area in order that he may build on the remaining one-third. There is no legislation in this country which operates so harshly as does that requirement which is placed on the owners of land in London.
8.0 p.m.
Reference has been made to the question of flooding. If the hon. Member had taken advantage of the issue of this Bill, and had referred to Clause 49, he would have found there provision to supervise the execution of any flood work. Are the county council to be denied the opportunity of obtaining these powers? I understand not. I understand there is no intention of opposing this Bill, and, therefore, it is not fair to the greatest municipal authority in the world to make these attacks upon it, which have no foundation in fact. The last matter to which I want to refer is a subject raised by the hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner), which is really the same point. If he will do the London
County Council the honour of reading the Bill, particularly Clause 49, he will see there that we are seeking power to prevent flooding.

Mr. GARDNER: Read it again.

Mr. TASKER: I have read it, but I am going to suggest that my hon. Friend with his usual intelligence should read it once and then there can be no mistake.

Mr. GARDNER: What is it that the hon. Member wants me to understand? Perhaps he does not understand it himself.

Mr. TASKER: I understand it all. If my hon. Friend does not, I am sorry for him.

Mr. GARDNER: Read it, and then tell us about it.

Mr. TASKER: If the hon. Member will read it, he will find that there is ample provision made there.

Mr. GARDNER: Where is it?

Mr. TASKER: In Clause 49.

Mr. GARDNER: But where?

Mr. TASKER: If the hon. Member will look at pages 31 and 32 and display his usual intelligence, he will see to what allusion is being made. I hope that this House will not waste any more time upon the matter, but will agree to the passage of this Bill.

Mr. MARCH: I do not desire to let this Bill go through without saying a word about it, although I am really sorry to think that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Tasker) is upset because we congratulate the London County Council on doing something. I want particularly to congratulate the London County Council on Clause 49 of this Bill. If any people suffered during January, 1928, it was constituents of mine, and I am very glad to know that the County Council are seeking extra powers. I hope that they will get them and carry them out. When they brought forward the 1879 Act, I was working round the Thames at Poplar, and I remember they were very energetic for a few months after the Act was passed in getting employers to increase the height of their camp shedding, and were very energetic in finding out where they had to have an opening
for flood doors, or flood gates, or whatever you like to term them; but that did not go on for many years, and one of the primary causes of the very big flood which he had in 1928 was simply the neglect of someone or other in authority who had not kept the walls up to the proper pitch and had not looked after them. I do not know whether that was the fault of the London County Council. Presumably not, otherwise they would not be seeking these powers.
If the London County Council get these powers, I hope that they will enforce them, and I am sure that the people in the constituency which I have the honour to represent will thank them very much. Although we had financial assistance, many of the people were never properly reimbursed for the suffering which they had to endure, neither were they paid for the work which they had to perform in clearing up the sludge and muck which lay about their rooms for weeks. I should like to have seen the London County Council go a little further, and say that the time has arrived when round the river-side there should be no underground places used as sleeping accommodation; and I should like to see the London County Council make provision for people so that that could be done.

Mr. TASKER: Will my hon. Friend permit me to remind the House that the total area below flood level in London is something like 19 square miles?

Mr. MARCH: Is that all? The unfortunate part about it is that I happen to represent a large proportion of the people living in that area. I understand that there is something like four and a-half to five miles river frontage round the little part of the Division which I represent, so that we have our fair, proportionate share.

Mr. TASKER: More.

Mr. MARCH: Yes, and more. There are a good number of houses which contain really no sleeping accommodation underground, but they are much below high-water mark. There ought to be some provision to give them an opportunity of increasing the height and doing away with the bottom floor. However, that is not in this Bill. If the London County Council get these powers and carry out
their work, as I know they have done in many other respects, many of the people in the Division which I represent will be thankful to them.

Sir GEORGE HUME: We have heard to-night a little echo over on this side of the river of some of the struggles which go on in another place. As regards the squares, that remark particularly applies, because there has been a very great difference of opinion over in the London County Council as to whether the County Council should proceed by Bill to deal with this problem or whether it should be left to the Government to handle. It is an immensely important problem, and the committee has issued a most important report on it; but the Council had very little time in which to prepare so important a Bill as that would have been if the County Council had come forward with it, and that accounts for the fact that the squares are not being dealt with by this Bill.
The criticisms raised and the scoldings given have been so mild that I am not tempted to deal very largely with the burning question of the tramways. All I can say to soothe Members on the other side is that, whatever they think is going to happen, the London County Council evidently considers it still within its power and its duty to extend the tramways where it is necessary to extend them: but, as regards this extension, we have had evidence given by a most orthodox Socialist borough, asking for this extension to be made. It merely means that the system is going to be linked up through the Downham Estate with the Woolwich system of tramways.
As regards the bridges, the London County Council has been taken to task because Lambeth Bridge has not been put in hand sooner. Surely hon. Members of this House know that there is a lot of history about the bridges of London; and Lambeth Bridge is only one of them. We have Charing Cross Bridge and we have Waterloo Bridge, a burning problem with which we cannot get forward. It is not the London County Council's fault that there is no settlement of the question as to whether Charing Cross Bridge is going to be reconstructed or not, and a great deal depends upon the decision there come to. At any rate, Lambeth
Bridge is in a fair way to go ahead, and I am sure that this House will do nothing which will run the least risk of holding up that work.
With regard to Sadler's Wells, the Council always proceeds cautiously when it is asked to contribute money in new directions. Of course, if a big authority contribute extensively, the natural corollary is that it assumes a certain amount of control. In this instance, the tentative suggestion or proposal put forward by the Council that they should be entitled to pay up to the sum of £1,000, experimentally, for rebuilding this theatre is a matter which will not excite a great deal of criticism; and indeed it is suggested that the Council might be encouraged to go a bit further on another occasion. I would ask hon. Members to do nothing to imperil the Bill, because holding up the Bill is imperilling it. It would no be hitting the County Council if the Bill did not go through; it would be hitting any number of municipal and other interests. If this Bill is carried, it will enable the Council to carry out matters which various borough councils have asked the London County Council to undertake, such as prevention of flooding for instance, which the Council is taking in hand. I should like to say a word about that. The Council are merely asking in this Bill for what the Committee which was set up by the Minister of Health recommended that the Council should have. If the County Council went a step beyond that, they might find themselves in a difficulty; they might be told that the Council was going to get powers in excess of those which had been recommended.

Mr. GARDNER: Is it not a fact that the Committee wanted flood prevention, and, if my statement is admitted that the wall is four inches below flood level, how can you call that flood prevention?

Sir G. HUME: The council needs to ask for no power, I believe I am right in saying, to increase the level up to which protection has to be provided, not by the council but by the owners.

Mr. GARDNER: Then why are they not doing anything at all to prevent the floods coming over that wall if you get a recurrence? It is no good spending money now when you know that the tides come four inches above the wall.

Sir G. HUME: The hon. Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Gardner) says that the tide comes four inches above the wall. The tide has done so, it is true, but, if he knew the tremendous effect there would be over the whole riverside if the council issued an order that the protective levels were to be increased by three or four inches along the whole of the river, I think he would realise that the council does well to go with caution in the matter.

Mr. GARDNER: They will get hanged next time there is a flood.

Sir G. HUME: It is, of course, the Council's duty to see that the existing defences are satisfactory, and the council is doing its utmost in that direction by asking for these further powers which the committee suggested the county council ought to have.

Captain HUDSON: Has the council power to deal with the river Lea as well as the river Thames?

Sir G. HUME: I was going to deal with that point. As a matter of fact, the council's authority does not extend to the river Lea; the Lea Conservancy Board deals with the river Lea and with the flood works there, so that really that is outside the purview of the county council. We are dealing here with the river Thames.
Then as to the lighting of staircases, of course the council have obtained powers for compulsorily lighting staircases, and I dare say some day they will go still further, but it is not in the present Bill. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Scurr) raised some question about improvements which he said were necessary at the entrance to the Elephant and Castle. We all realise the necessity of some very great improvement being made there but we have to go step by step. You will find that in this Bill the county council has already provided for some very costly improvements, and no doubt they will come forward on another occasion and ask for something more.
As to the power of taking land, I think the hon. and gallant Member for North Hackney (Captain Hudson) was justifiably anxious that where land is taken and any building is put up on open space provision should be made; but, if this House considers the contribu-
tion which the London County Council has made to open spaces in London, it will realise that every effort has been made in that direction. I do not think there has been any real criticism as regards new parks and open spaces generally, and hon. Members will realise that the policy of the London County Council and one of its main efforts is to get open spaces in London for the recreation and sport of the people. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member had in view certain proposals as regards Hackney. Probably he had. The suggestion there is a building for recreational purposes for the school children, and there will be more buildings put there. There are special provisions being made for the recreation of children in connection with the work which is carried on in those buildings, of a purely educational character. I am sure the Council does bear in mind, and will bear in mind, the absolute necessity of keeping open spaces. This House knows that it was only quite recently that the London County Council came forward and obtained powers, not merely to purchase land for park purposes and recreational purposes, but to enable them to let that land out for sports, games, and so on. Those are new powers and valuable powers and ones of which use will be made. I hope the House will allow this Bill to go through, and that there will be no danger of its failing to pass before Parliament is prorogued.

GALLOWAY WATER POWER BILL [Lords]. (By Order).

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
I rise to oppose this Bill on behalf of the proprietors and tenants of land in Ayrshire, on behalf of miners and collieries in Ayrshire, and on behalf of the fishing interests. I do not suppose there
are many Members of the House who have had the time or patience to wade through this tome of 105 pages which constitutes the Bill, and so I would like to give a very brief description of what the position is and what the Bill proposes to do. Loch Doon is a loch in Ayrshire which drains into the River Doon. The River Doon runs for about 26¼ miles and empties into the sea at the town of Ayr. Loch Doon supplies the water for most of the mills, industrial organisations and residences on its course to the sea, and also at its mouth in Ayr. About 100 years ago some of the proprietors and owners of land around the loch erected a barrier across its mouth so as to conserve its waters and to prove of assistance to the countryside if drought should overtake it. By the aid of sluices the flow of water is guided and restricted when necessary. The average flow of water from Loch Doon to the sea has been about 65,000,000 gallons a day when there is a drought on, going up to 80,000,000 gallons a day ordinarily. It is the contention of the opponents of the Bill that 65,000,000 gallons a day is the very minimum amount of water which is necessary to keep the river clean, sweet and healthy and to ensure that no disease or infection arises from pollution at its mouth or on its course.
According to the promoters of the Bill, they are going to erect a still higher barrier at the mouth of the loch. They are going to raise the level of the loch from 23 feet to 38 feet, raising it first of all by 23 feet and taking powers to increase that height by 38 feet afterwards. They are going to reduce the quantity of water released daily to 45,000,000 gallons a day, with a flush every three weeks of 80,000,000 gallons. That is a totally inadequate quantity of water to preserve the health of the community or to give the necessary assistance to the industrial organisations which depend on that water. What are the promoters going to do with the balance of the water? They are going to take that water away on to another watershed altogether, the watershed of the Dee, in another county altogether, and are there going to erect power stations to generate electricity for a county outside the County of Ayr, the County of Kirkcudbright and Galloway generally.
We in Ayrshire feel that we are being done out of our birthright. We feel that our interests and the interests of the county are not being properly considered, and although when the Bill was before the Committee of the House of Lords numerous concessions were given, there was a reason for that. Every million gallons a day which is restricted from flowing down the river means £1,100 a year to the promoters. It will be seen, therefore, how keen the promoters are to save every additional million gallons which they can.
Along the course of the River Doon there are farms, villages and cottages, all of which drain into the Doon, and disease is bound to be created if there is not sufficient water in that river; and although the promoters have gone to the local authority in Ayr and said, "We will assist you to erect sewage installations at the mouth of the river so as to keep things right," it is estimated by experts that the rateable value of the land alongside the river Doon will be reduced by 50 per cent. if there is this diminution in the amenities of the neighbourhood. At the same time the occupiers of that land will be forced to pay higher rates towards the cost of erecting the sewage installations. I submit that that is unfair, and, if for no other reason, the Bill should be rejected.
Then we come to the salmon fishing. That is a prosperous industry on the Doon, and if this Bill is passed it will be seriously affected. Of course we have had a period of drought lately, but only yesterday I myself saw no more than a few inches of water on the Doon there. If the flow of water is still further reduced, how will it be possible to ensure the health of the community or to give the salmon a chance to get up the river? The spawning grounds for the salmon are right at the south end of Loch Doon, and whether the promoters provide hatcheries or not, this scheme will undoubtedly spoil the salmon fishing to a very large extent, thereby reducing the work for many men employed in that industry and interfering with the amenities of the district generally. A further point is, "What do the promoters hope to do when they get this water into Kirkcudbright?" They are going to erect five power stations to produce 188,000,000 units of electricity per annum for the "grid." That is the ostensible plan. As far as we can make
out, there is no possibility of that amount of electricity being required for the Galloway district. I am not talking now of Ayrshire at all, because we do not come into that. We are like the milch cow, or, to vary the simile used by one distinguished Member of this House the other day, we are being butchered to make a Galloway holiday. According to our investigations, there cannot be any sufficient demand for the quantity of electricity which would be produced under this scheme, and there will have to be a leg of the "grid" running from Kilmarnock to Carlisle at a cost of about £250,000. That money is not going to be charged up to the Galloway scheme; it is going to be charged to the Electricity Board.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): The hon. and gallant Member was not quite fair in the presentation of his case, quite unintentionally I know, when he said there would not be enough consumers in the Galloway district to justify that output. The whole idea is to make that electricity available not only for other districts in Scotland but for parts of North-West England. It is a national scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I accept that statement, and I therefore would say that the general increase of the cost of electricity will be spread over a wider area.

Colonel ASHLEY: The cost of electricity to the consumer will be diminished by that proposal.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Of course, I accept the information which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has given on this point, but the investigations of those who are interested in opposing this Bill have led us to believe that the Electricity Board are wrong, and our opinion is that there will be a general increase to the consumer. There is another point of great importance which should be taken into account. The promoters claimed before the Lords Committee a reduction in rates, and that reduction is estimated will be something like £22,000 a year. Why should any company which, after all, is a competing company, be subsidised in this way to the extent of £22,000 a year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I am authorised to say that the Secretary for Scotland is
going to make a further report on this electricity scheme.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: A document which has been issued by the promoters of this Bill makes a great deal of the additional employment which it is claimed will be given to skilled and unskilled workers, owing to the erection of the plant connected with the schemes in this Measure, and it is stated that it will employ 4,000 men for three years. That is an estimate which I greet with some considerable reserve. If the power required in connection with the schemes under this Bill was produced by coal instead of water, that would employ between 400 and 500 miners. I cannot believe that this House will pass a Bill which will put the unemployed miners in a still worse position by subsidising an electricity company. I hope we shall not be mislead by the statements which have been made in favour of this Measure, because the promoters are not philanthropists who are out to help their fellow-men. Their object is to make money and to make anything between 5 per cent. and 6½ per cent.
We are told that the Electricity Commissioners and the Central Electricity Board are in favour of this Bill. Of course they are, because they wish to encourage enterprising people from England to come over to Scotland in order to exploit schemes of this kind. As for this Measure being for the general good of the greatest number, that statement is simply drawing a red herring across the track. My own opinion is that this Measure is not an economic scheme at all, and I believe that the promoters are so desirous of getting it through that they have made such large concessions to Kirkcudbrightshire as will enable that county to reduce the price of its electricity after the Bill has gone through. I believe the scheme is uneconomic, and, if it passes, it will mean that a certain amount of money will go into the pockets of the people who are co-operating in the working of it. The Electricity Commissioners will be left behind as well as the consumers, and a higher price will have to be paid for the electricity.

Mr. SULLIVAN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore) has put his case
very well. I wish to speak on behalf of the coal industry. In the speeches which were delivered last night we heard a good deal about the efforts which have been made to bring about peace in industry. I appeal to the House to reject this Bill on various grounds. My main reason is that at the present moment we have about 30,000 miners in Scotland who are out of work. I know a return has been published; informing us that 25,000 miners are idle, but I am not sure that that represents the full number of those who are idle. If this schemes goes through it has been calculated that the generation of the power required will employ 500 miners full time all the year round. I know it is argued that water power is much cheaper but my belief is that the scheme of this Bill is not a practical one. Under one scheme power is given to use and divert the waters of the following locks, rivers and streams:
Loch Doon, Loch Ken, Loch Grennoch, River Dee, River Dee or Blackwater of Dee, River Ken, River Deugh, Craigshinnie Burn, Palnure Burn, Pullaugh Burn, Green Burn, Glenhead Burn, Mid Burn, Carrouch Burn, Blackwater Burn, Bow Burn, Cullendoch Burn, Lamford Burn, Meadowhead Burn, Fingland Lane and Carsphairn Lane.
If you interfere with all those streams and rivers and divert the waters running through them, I do not think that you will have sufficient pressure to turn the machinery which will be required for the purposes of the undertaking. The point about cheapness is one that should be considered. It is generally admitted that electricity can be produced at a cheaper rate by water power than by steam power, but the cost of generation is not the main factor. In this case it is the transmission, and the cost of transmission will outrun the saving in cost of generation, so that the electricity will ultimately be much dearer. I noticed that the Minister tried to put my hon. Friend right on some points, but I want to repeat some of these things. The grid is to be constructed from Carlisle to Kilmarnock, a distance of 110 miles. It is to run through wilds of Galloway, where there is practically no population. The biggest town there is Dumfries, and that is already supplied. It is astonishing to learn that the tapping of the grid is not an easy matter It is calculated that one tapping will cost
anything from £30,000 to £40,000. That means that it will not do any good in Galloway unless it is going to work back, because there is no population there that is ever likely to require the power which will be placed at their disposal.
The Minister says that this is to link up with a scheme for the whole of Scotland, and, personally, I should rather welcome that, but, taking Scotland as we know it, the natural route would be from Carlisle through Hawick and Galashiels to Edinburgh. That would pass through the rich Border counties, where there is a big population, where there would be a demand for power, and where it would be much more useful and ultimately much cheaper than it could be under the Galloway scheme. The admission of the Minister that they are not sure yet about the concessions as to rates is an ugly thing. Nowadays everyone is demanding the extinction of rates, and, if anyone were to bring before this House a Bill to save us all from paying rates, it would certainly be carried. It seems as though the cure for everything is relief from rates. This company would be liable to pay about £32,000 in rates, but I understand that they have obtained in another place a reduction to £9,400; but they themselves have an agreement with the county of Kirkcudbright to pay £11,000. I suggest to the House that, in view of the Minister's statement, this Bill ought to be delayed, and we ought to know exactly whether they are going to pay rates or whether they are going to be exempt. It would be unfair now to pass a Bill of this kind. The other point is that I believe the scheme to be wholly uneconomic, and that the promoters are making a mistake, even from their own point of view. The natural route which I have pointed out would afford some hope of success, but to put it through the wilds of Galloway would involve an economic loss, and I hope the House will reject the Bill.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I am sorry, in giving a short reply to some of the arguments that have been put forward against this Bill, to find myself, for once, in oposition to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Lieut.-Colonel Moore), with whom I have been associated in connection with other Bills which have passed through this
House, but I think that the information he gave to the House was, no doubt unintentionally, incorrect and entirely contrary to the actual situation. The first thing that I would ask the House to remember is that this Bill is not coming before us as an entirely new Measure, un-investigated by anyone It was brought before the House of Lords, and it has been examined by an expert committee presided over by Lord Younger, himself a former Member for Ayr Burghs. Before that Committee of the House of Lords every interest was fully represented, and every possible legal argument was placed before them. The Bill as we now have it is the result of the investigations of that committee. Evidence was brought before the committee which led to the conclusion that no less a sum than £47,000 a year would be saved in the provision of electricity if the Bill were passed in its present form. Assuming the calculations to be correct, the electricity supplied under the provisions of this Bill would be supplied at a cost which would be £47,000 a year less than if the electricity were produced by the use of coal.
It is quite open to my hon. and gallant Friend, and to the hon. Member who seconded his Amendment, to discredit the estimates on which these figures were based, but I would ask the House to remember that the figures have been examined by a very highly qualified committee and have been accepted by them, and it would not be wise, if I may say so, to set against that the opinon of any hon. Member, unless it were backed by highly expert information, on such a subject as that of electricity supply. Turning to some of the other arguments used against the Bill by my hon. and gallant Friend, he mentioned, first of all, the question of mills, and said that the amount of water left would not be sufficient for the purpose of working the mills. He did not, however, tell the House that the Bill includes a provision that if the water power should prove insufficient the scheme will provide electric power free to the mills to enable them to carry on their industries. My hon. and gallant Friend also mentioned the question of health, but, of course, one is entitled to say that the people responsible for the health of that area—the county councils and the local
authorities—do not oppose the Bill, and it must therefore be taken as their wish that it should become law.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: When my hon. and gallant Friend says that the county councils have accepted the Bill, I hope hon. Members will recollect that I said that, for every 1,000,000 gallons saved daily., the promoters save £1,100 a year, and they are, therefore, in a position to adjust the matter somewhat easily. I think that to say that the county councils welcome the Bill or are in favour of it is rather going beyond the bounds of actual fact.

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: I do not want to enter into an argument with my hon. and gallant Friend as to the attitude of the county councils, but I suggest that it is not very probable that the Ayr County Council will allow themselves to be drawn away from what is fair because the company will have an estimated surplus. Surely we can trust our local authorities to be a little more careful in their investigation and better guided on a matter which would gravely affect the health of the community for which they are responsible. I think the House is bound to accept the view that the county councils are in favour of the Bill. Any suggestion that the county councils would not be in favour of it if the company had not a surplus of money is, if I may say so with all respect, not only absurd, but is a suggestion that ought not to be made in this House with regard to any public body which is responsible for the carrying out of important public duties. The question of the use of the electricity has been raised, and it is said that this electricity would not be used for Ayrshire, but that is incorrect, because a very large amount of it is hypothecated for use in Ayrshire itself.
Then there is the question of disease. One statement of the hon. Member filled me with a certain amount of alarm. He said that the amount of water remaining was so small that disease would forthwith attack the people of the area, but the river has already been several times far below the amount which the Committee considers necessary and, so far as I know, no disease has supervened. Therefore, I think we can leave the question of health in the good keeping of the local authorities who are responsible for
it. With regard to the relief of rates, the Minister will no doubt give us some further information on the subject. But on the general principle of relieving hydro-electric undertakings from a portion of the rates, the House should consider that if you take electricity produced by coal, the coal that comes into it gets a relief in rates in itself. In the case of electricity produced by coal, the rating relief would be reflected by the reduced value in the coal. For example, electricity produced by coal and costing say £50,000, might use £40,000 of coal and would get relief in rating on this amount. This raw material, coal, is represented in a hydro-electric scheme by the high initial cost of construction of the head works, and it is surely entitled to an equitable rebate, not to give it any advantage but to put it on an equality with electricity produced by coal.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that all the things that are required for the purpose of establishing this industry, and which are involved in the capital outlay, are de-rated?

Brigadier-General CHARTERIS: The principal part of the expenditure will be for actual manual labour With regard to employment, that of course is a very important aspect of the case, and if I believed for a moment that the true representation of the case was that this scheme was only to give employment to the number of people required for the preparation of the head works for a given period, as opposed to permanent employment of coal miners, I should be prepared to reconsider my position very carefully. But I do not think that is the position. You are bringing into the country a supply of electricity for the express purpose of encouraging industry, and the expansion of industry which may be expected to follow will far outweigh the employment of the men required for the production of the electricity or for making the head works. That is the real issue before the House. We have here a scheme the purpose of which is to give more power to certain local areas. It is based on the principles which the House has approved, of the electricity Bill. It has been accepted by every competent authority that has dealt
with it locally and it would be wrong of the House to reject it altogether.
No case whatever has been made out for throwing the Bill out. It is suggested that Galloway alone is concerned in the Bill, and that the promoters of the company are the only people who will reap an advantage. I represent a county which is immediately adjacent, and it is closely concerned with the Bill and wishes it to go through. There remains only the question, which I am sorry the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs referred to, of money being transferred from the company to the authorities in Kirkcudbright so as to get them to accept the Bill. I think the figure of £11,000 was mentioned. It is true there is an allowance of some £11,000, but of that sum £8,000 is due to a reduction of rates and £3,000 is given to enable the electricity to be distributed so as to be of the utmost use to the area covered by the Bill. I do not know on whose behalf the hon. Member was speaking—it may be on behalf of a few people concerned with property in the area—but all the main public bodies have expressed their approval and desire for the Bill, it has been examined with extreme care by a Committee of the House of Lords, the Central Electricity Board have gone into all of its technical points and have given a very definite opinion through the chairman in favour of the scheme, and I ask the House to pass the Bill.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Why do we oppose the Bill? In the first place, because it is our duty to see to it that this new power of electricity is kept in the hands of the community, and not allowed to get into the hands of exploiters. I do not see that those in charge of the Bill have any regard for my country whatever. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris) referred to Lord Younger. He made a serious mistake. The last man in Scotland who has any influence on these benches is Lord Younger, because we believe he has no more regard for Scotland than the man in the moon. Evidence of that is contained in the picture in St. Stephen's Hall that was given by him. We protested to the best of our ability, and drew his attention to the fact that if he ransacked all Scottish history in order to depict one of the meanest transactions that has happened
in our country, he could not have done better than produce that picture. The picture shows how the rich men, the aristocrats of Scotland sold Scotland. They were bought by English gold. Each individual on that picture had his price. We did all we could in this House to get the Noble Lord to take that picture down and put in its place a picture that would have some semblance of Scottish history as far as the British Empire is concerned. I would suggest that the picture to be substituted should deal with the period when James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): This has nothing to do with the question of electricity from water power in either Ayrshire or Galloway.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I was merely pointing out the moral of the business. The hon. and gallant Member for Dumfries was allowed to bring in the name of Lord Younger, and surely I was within my rights in letting the House know what we think of Lord Younger.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I thought the hon. Member was going on to describe what artistic representation should be substituted for that approved by Lord Younger.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not wish to follow you, Mr. Hope; therefore, I will continue my speech on this Galloway Water Power Bill. What do we find in this Bill? There are ever so many burns and lochs in Scotland and there is a danger of their being tapped dry. Those individuals who are running this show do not care if they run Scotland dry as long as they make money out of it. They are going to tap all the burns. They are going to tap Loch Doon.

Captain STREATFEILD: Do you know it?

9.0 p.m.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I know Loch Doon, and I know the River Doon, too. That is also threatened. These are the historical rivers and lochs of Scotland, and no Scotsman would dare to face a Scottish constituency in regard to the idea of destroying Burn's country. That is what it implies. Here we have a mere Englishman like the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite. This is what we have to
put up with. When we mention some-thing which is sacred to us, we have the Minister of Transport smiling.

Colonel ASHLEY: I am as much a Scotsman as the hon. Gentleman. I have had three years in the Ayrshire Militia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: There is a sample of the Hamilton Militia! He is no Englishman. Here they are going to tap the Doon, to tap all these rivers that our great bard Robert Burns has endeared to the hearts of everyone, not only to the hearts of Scotsmen but to the hearts of those who have any sentimental feeling or love of country. That fellow over there, I do not know which is his constituency—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If the hon. Member is referring to anyone in this House, it is a most improper way to do it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Keep them in order as well as us. I do not think the hon. and gallant Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild) cares a straw what becomes of Galloway or of Scotland if he can make money out of the business.

Captain STREATFEILD: rose—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not impute motives to any hon. Member of the House. If that practice were allowed it would put an end to the decencies of debate.

Captain STREATFEILD: May I frankly state that my constituency did me the honour to elect me to represent them, and that I have never failed to keep them in the forefront of my mind. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) says is absolutely and categorically untrue.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I do not want to go into the business but:
Facts are chiels that winna ding,
And daurna be disputed.
We know where these people get their money. Our country is being bled by them. In any case, we on these benches say that this Bill requires to be examined. There is something at stake here. We are not going to allow the country to be defaced. I am not opposing it. I am a Socialist, and I am not going to oppose electrical equipment. I am going to grasp whatever is the best means of producing the necessaries and the luxuries
of life. I am not going to keep back the sands of time to suit one industry or section of the community. I believe that the Bill is something that we should examine so that we may see what is behind the individuals who are recommending it. Personally, I have a suspicion. I have a right to be suspicious. The recommendation of Lord Younger is nothing to us on these benches. At any rate, it ought not to be. Another thing that requires consideration is, whether it is going to deface the country. Therefore, I will do all I can to hold up this Bill until we find out what is behind it. Even the Minister of Transport, who belonged to the Hamilton Militia—

Colonel ASHLEY: The Ayrshire Militia.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Was it the Ayrshire Militia? Well, if I were the Minister, I would
tell it not in Gath and publish it not in the streets of Askelon.
I leave the matter at that. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to be in his place. There is no representative of the Scottish Office on the Front Bench. Again, they are treating the House with contempt—these great Parliamentarians, these great House of Commons men, who profess to stand up for the dignity of the House and all the holy traditions which surround it. But when there is business on they are absent at a supper or a wedding or something of that kind. They are not doing what the country pays Ministers £2,000 a year for doing. The Secretary of State for Scotland has been up for a rise in his wages, but this is another reason against giving him an increase in wages. He is not paying attention to his business. Either the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary, or the Lord Advocate—who has just been promoted—or the Solicitor-General, ought to be here, but we have not a single representative, and, with all these ideas before me, I am going to oppose this Bill in order that we may get at what is behind it.

Colonel ASHLEY: Before dealing very shortly with the general principles of the Bill, may I say, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dumfries (Brigadier-General Charteris), that
the actual allocation of the transmission lines of the grid in Scotland, though tentatively laid down, are susceptible of alteration and, therefore, if it is found desirable, there is no difficulty in having a branch line of the grid run through Langholm as he suggested. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite would have been so searching in their investigations and so vocal in their utterances if this Bill had been promoted by a local authority. I doubt it.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: We would not have been so hard.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I suggest that, although hon. Members opposite are entitled to consider municipal enterprise better than private enterprise, yet things being as they are, it is against the public interest to oppose the Second Reading of a Bill simply because it is promoted by private enterprise.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is because the Government at the moment are dealing with electricity and supplying the country with electricity that we are opposing it.

Colonel ASHLEY: I should have thought that would be a "bull point" on our side, and that, if we are supplying electricity to the country, we are doing a very good thing. We must really regard the objects of the Bill and not the people who promote it—although naturally you have to scrutinise whether the promoters are able to carry out what they say they are able to carry out, and whether they are the proper people to whom extensive powers should be entrusted. But questions of whether fishing will be affected, and whether certain farms may be hurt, while they are very important, are not Second Reading points. They are points which ought to be, and I hope will be, investigated in Committee here, just as they were investigated in Committee in another place, when certain modifications were made. I am authorised by the Secretary of State for Scotland who is unavoidably absent—I hope the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will understand that—to say that he is not satisfied with the valuation Clause as it comes from another place, and hopes, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, to suggest to the Select Committee of this House that they ought to make some alteration in that Clause in order to put the scheme on what he considers to be an economic basis.
I should have thought that, on general principles, everybody in the House would have welcomed such a scheme as this, provided that the Committee to which the Bill is sent, is satisfied as to the details and the economic basis of the scheme. What is the country crying out for? What did we spend months in 1926 in doing? We passed the Electricity Bill and, I freely admit now, as I did then, that hon. Members opposite gave us considerable help. Their criticisms were not unfriendly and were helpful on the whole. This Bill does assist the sheme. So I am advised technically. I am not an expert in these matters and I cannot say personally whether this particular form of generation of electricity will help the grid in Scotland and North-West England and the Glasgow area particularly. But I can tell the House what I am advised by the Central Electricity Board, which has a very distinguished Scotsman at its head. It is his considered opinion and the unanimous opinion of his Boards that this scheme will supply electricity to the grid, in the industrial areas of Scotland, and in the country districts as well, distinctly cheaper than it would be possible to provide electricity from a coal-fed station.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does Sir Andrew Duncan not hold that his Board could ran this business themselves without private enterprise?

Colonel ASHLEY: It is not Sir Andrew Duncan's business to express an opinion on that matter. His business, which he is doing extremely well, is to carry out the Electricity Act of 1926. I am reinforced by the technical advice, not only of Sir Andrew Duncan and the Board, but by that of the Electricity Commissioners, a body which has at its head Sir John Snell, a great expert in electricity who prepared all the data on which the 1926 Act was based. They hold that this scheme, if carried through, will supply electricity cheaper than it could be supplied by a coal-fed station. If that is so, I suggest respectfully to the House that we ought not to criticise whether it is municipal or private enterprise.

Mr. SULLIVAN: What about the miners?

Colonel ASHLEY: I had the honour of passing a scheme of freight reduction on coal in connection with iron and steel, but it is not surely suggested that the community as a whole should be compelled to pay a higher price for electricity, because the hon. Member thinks that coal ought to be used in preference to water for the generation of electricity. Let us help the miners by all means but we cannot do so by compelling an increase in the price of electricity which is so important industrially, especially in the Clyde area.

Mr. SULLIVAN: But the Minister's own colleague at that Box yesterday said the only way to help the idle workers was to get them back at their own jobs.

Colonel ASHLEY: I do not think the way to do it is by increasing the price to the general consumer. I suggest to the House that they should give the Bill a Second Reading. It will then go to a Select Committee where all these minor, though important, points can be discussed, and then, if the House considers that it has not had sufficient consideration, it has a full right to reject it on Report.

Mr. HARDIE: As one who served on the Electricity Committee in 1926 I am surprised that the Minister of Transport in his brief address has not reminded the House of the promise which the Prime Minister gave before the Electricity Bill was drafted. The Prime Minister, in 1926, said that the nation was going to be the first consideration, so far as the production of electricity for industry was concerned. The Minister of Transport should have made it perfectly clear what was meant by the passing of that Act, but, instead, he tries to skip off by throwing out something that has absolutely no relation to the criticisms which have been made by hon. Members on these benches. We on these benches are fighting against the right of any handful of individuals in any form of ramp to have handed to them a natural source of energy called water, in order that they may sell power back to this nation at a profit. That is what is contained in page 86, Clause 124, of this Bill.
If you want to find out what someone is driving at, especially if it is a Bill of over 100 Clauses, you must turn to the
end of the Bill and you will get the kernel of the whole matter. In Clause 26, you find that the Board of Trade, with the consent of the Treasury, may at any time within six months, make arrangements for the purchase of hydro-electric works, and the details, which regularise purchase in time to come, are contained in three pages. If the gentlemen concerned in this hydro-electric scheme were operating in the national interest in order to decrease the price of electricity why should they go to the trouble of having all these details concerning the buying back by the nation inserted in the Bill; and buying back that which belongs to the nation. The water power of this country does not belong to any individual; it belongs to the people. To-night we are being asked to put this natural source of energy into the hands of a few people. We on these benches oppose it. The Minister of Transport said something about tenures. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman knows what is meant by the word "servitude" in regard to land. I do not say that he ought to know, but I do think that the Lord Advocate should be present whilst this Bill is being considered.

Colonel ASHLEY: It means an easement.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but you have not told us what an easement means. The word "easement" has a great many meanings in actual interpretation. I am not blaming the Minister of Transport, but I do think he should have had someone with him capable of dealing with such a question.

Colonel ASHLEY: I have told you what easement means.

Mr. HARDIE: Yes, but there are hundreds of other questions I could put to the right hon. Gentleman. The Minister of Transport did not try to relate this Bill to the national scheme. The Act of 1926 did not intend that any group of individuals should come along and make a prior claim to a part of the national estate. The Act of 1926 says that the great essential power of electricity is going to be viewed first from the point of view of the needs of the nation. What has happened? Just as American capital is being used in certain parts of England in order that
they may sell out at a higher price, so the same thing is now taking place in Scotland. I am not sure what capital is being used in Scotland, but I will find that out later. The Government get the Act of 1926 through and tell the British people that the nation is to come first. Here we have the methods whereby this part of the nation is being taken over by a company for the purpose of selling back electricity to the nation at a high price. That is their whole interest, so far as the company is concerned.
Take the question of generation. London with its power stations buys coal at the same price, pays the same rate of wages, and that means that at the machine the unit is almost uniform in price. The real price of electricity comes in when you begin to transmit it. Here you have a case where you are going to generate electricity and travel 110 miles on such a high voltage that you cannot step down and supply people who want it under a cost of something like £30,000 or £40,000. If you are carrying thousands of volts and you want to come down to 400 or 500 volts in order to supply a community you have to go to the expense of stepping down from this high current. It means that all this expensive grid is carried through grouse moors. There is no tapping there which would make it profitable to reduce from such a high voltage. I could have seen the force of this if we had been generating electricity at a low voltage in order to give every farmer and every place nearby electricity. The idea here is not to give service but to enter upon linking-up with what is called the national grid. It is that alone which makes the promoters of this Bill put in what we find on page 86 and establish the right to say: "You have got to purchase this." The whole thing depends on what Government is in power if this Act goes through.
Now we come to the question of price. The Minister of Transport has repeated what he has said more than once since the passing of the 1926 Act. He said the whole idea was that we were going to cheapen prices of electricity. The first linking-up in the grid scheme was in Scotland, and the first thing to happen was an increase by the Clyde Valley Electricity Supply Company in their price to the consumer. If the Minister can stand up and show that in any particular
instance in that area which is now linked up there is a decrease in price, I would like to hear him.

Colonel ASHLEY: I think I said that the first supply will not come into operation until next month, and therefore any increase of price, of which I have no knowledge, cannot be put down to that.

Mr. HARDIE: That is exactly what I expected. Despite the 1926 Act that was going to have an effect from the national point of view, and under which there was going to be a national grid which would prevent an increase in the price of this great need, we are now being told that it is within the power of every private company producing units to increase the price. The Minister tells me that this thing does not count until some future time, but can he answer this? Will he say that the grid that is linked up with Scotland is not in commission and is not working? Does he deny that it is carrying power to-day for more than one station? He knows, of course, that these wires are carrying current. That is part of the scheme, but, despite that fact, these consumers have had notice that they are going to get one-third added to the cost. As an illustration of what happens, under the Act of 1894 they gave the Clyde Valley certain powers as regards Ruther-glen, which is a town practically in Glasgow. They gave power to say to Glasgow "No, unless you are prepared to pay higher prices." They have been compelled to pay higher prices. Then there was a Clause that if the Clyde Valley at any time under the new arrangement and in new areas sought to increase the price, that could not be done. What happened? The Clyde Valley sent up this notice of increase to the people in Rutherglen and one magistrate there remembered the Act and drew the attention of those in power to that Act, and that intimation of increase was withdrawn as far as Rutherglen was concerned. That is exactly what is taking place, and the public do not seem to be interested until they get a notice of increase. How can anyone stand up and say that the great hope is that they are going to be able at some time or other to reduce the price of electricity? It seems to me that when we have had so much experience, and have spent so much money already, it is a strange
thing that we have no concrete statement that we shall be able to reduce prices.
The Minister referred to generation. He knows, of course, that there is a great difference between the cost of water-power plant and coal or steam plant. I am not arguing for one class of industrial power or another. I view this from a national point of view, but when you take the price of steam plant as against water-power plant, it means that your water-power plant will cost at least three times what your steam plant will cost. The reason is that whether you can produce to the consumer more cheaply depends entirely upon the amount of reduction you can make in the distribution of current, when you have made it. A big mistake has been made with the superpower stations of America. It does not follow that the small plant will be inefficient, and a five-horse power plant can be as efficient as a hundred-horse power. It seems to me strange that, after all the discussions, the Minister should be so far misled in regard to that point. There are many other things with which I want to deal, but there is one point as far as the land side is concerned. Take Clause 50. I would ask the Minister to explain this. It says:
If there be any omission, mis-statement…the Company, after giving 10 days' notice to the owners, lessees and occupiers of the lands in question, may apply to the sheriff for the county in which such lands are situate.
What does that mean? There are instances where lands are without owners in Scotland. A company can give ten days' notice to the owners of that land to turn up, and if they do not turn up, it does not become the property of the nation but goes into the company, and the company becomes the owner without paying a single farthing for it. Then I hope the Minister will deal with Clause 52 where there is compulsory acquirement. With regard to access and the conveying of materials to and from any works, does this Act authorise it, or is it going to wipe out all the other Acts as far as that part of Galloway is concerned? Clause 60 is another instance of what is taking place. The Minister did not tell the House whether all this had been laid before the Electricity Commissioners or not. He referred to Sir
John Snell, but his opinion is a personal and private one.

Colonel ASHLEY: He was speaking for the Central Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. HARDIE: Exactly, but it is the Board which is dealing with what the Act of 1926 is supposed to carry out. Did the Board have all these facts before them, and did they know what was on page 85 of the Bill? Did the Minister draw attention to the fact that the object of the Bill seemed to be to build something and to sell it at another date to the Government? Did the Board give any consideration to that fact, and, if so, what was the reply? Take the Clause which refers to the reduction of rates. Why should people who say that they are doing this in the interests of the nation want this reduction? Why should not the capital stand the same as other people's capital? How does the Minister of Transport interpret that Clause? Next take Clause 73, which is very serious. We have heard about the question of sewage, and we cannot deal with it in a pass-over kind of way. Here you have it stated, "If it is found that the water is insufficient." We know in Scotland that in dry weather, such as we have had recently, we can get a very big drop in the level of our rivers. The flow of the number of gallons passing is a simple thing to measure, and sanitary engineers can say how many million gallons are required to keep a river clean.
The Clause, instead of being definite, uses these words: "If owing to the construction and operation of the works," etc. Note the word "if." We all know the dangers of the presence of sewage on a hot summer day. Before we can prove under this Bill what is "reasonable" we may have lawyers arguing for weeks as to what "reasonable" means, and all the time the sewage would be still exposed and disease would be spreading. My point is that there is no need for the almost negative language in this Clause, If we know the number of gallons of water necessary to keep a river clean, we ought to be satisfied that that number, as a minimum, passes. This is the kind of thing that occurs in Bills that are rushed through the House. The
same remark applies to water. They do not say, "We shall see that everyone gets water." The Bill calls for the utmost scrutiny. Instead of the Bill having been brought forward in interruption of the main Debate, in order to push through the Second Reading, we ought to have been fully informed, by a detailed speech from the Minister of Transport, as to what was in the Bill, and the Minister should have shown the need for the granting of the powers that are sought in the Bill.
I am not convinced at all. I know Ayrshire very well. I was at school very near Loch Doon. I have poached there, and as a boy I had the best poacher as a trainer. We hear a lot about sentiment. People say, "Do not allow your sentiment to interfere with an industrial undertaking." I am as much concerned with the development of industry as some of those who protest more about it. Not because of Robert Burns, but because of the generations that are yet to come, the destruction of these natural beauties ought to be considered. The Minister of Transport should have shown to-night that although by the Bill the natural beauties of this countryside will be destroyed, there would be compensation in the shape of electricity at one-eighth or one-quarter of the present price, or even that there would be a penny taken off the price. But the right hon. Gentleman cannot do that, nor can Sir John Snell promise it, nor Mr. Page, the engineer of the Electricity Board. The Bill is just another form of ramp. A number of men see that a great national scheme has not had time to develop, and they step in and put their arms round a part of Scotland; and then, under the Bill, at a certain time the nation will buy back the undertaking, not at the nation's price, but theirs.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I hope that the House will accord the Bill a Second Reading, for I regard it as a Bill not merely to provide for the generation of electricity but one which will tend to improve the conditions of rural life. When in full operation it will help to stop the flow of the rural community into large urban centres, for the urge of the city becomes less powerful as the amenities and advantages of city life become available to the rural population. Possibly it is for that reason among others that the
Electricity Commissioners and Central Electricity Board are throwing their weight in support of the measure. I understand that the Mineowners' Association raise objections to the Bill on the ground that if electricity can be generated by coal it ought to be and must be generated by coal. Surely that is a retrograde attitude for any important body to adopt. It might as well be urged that railways ought never to have come into being because they interfered with the stage coach. Other illustrations might be given. The argument of the Mineowners' Association is not an argument that stands investigation.
I welcome a challenge of that kind because I believe it is the duty and function of the House to see that each and every resource in this country is developed in the fullest and most effective way. From the national point of view, I consider that this scheme is of great importance. It will not only affect the supply of electricity in Scotland, but will help us in England, and to that extent it is our concern to see that the Bill gets through. It is a great employment scheme. A sum of £3,000,000 will be spent on construction, and 4,000 men will be directly engaged in giving effect to its provisions. Some miners, I hope many, will find employment as a result of the scheme.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the rural point of view. Far too many of the schemes that come before the House do little or nothing to assist rural dwellers. Those of us who are familiar with the development of electricity in Sweden and some other Continental countries, realise how far behind we are in the matter, and that there is a great and urgent need for the development of electricity in our country. It is almost a tragedy that we get so few opportunities of debating the question of electricity supply. Kirkcudbrightshire, where this scheme will operate, is a large county with a small population, which is widely distributed. The County Council approve the scheme and believe that it will supply current on an acceptable and economic basis and at a reasonable price. They will obtain £8,000 relief from the rates, and also—and this I regard as a most important matter from the point of view of the development of electricity in rural areas
—they will get an annual subsidy of £3,000 a year to be used for promoting distribution schemes in the county. That is a very important matter. It will enable current to be taken to between 40 and 50 villages and towns in the district.
After all, in the development of electricity the problem of distribution is the principal problem that has to be faced, and I am glad to think that public interest is at last being evinced in the need for greater activity in this matter. Many of us welcome the fact that the Electricity Commissioners have devoted a large section of their eighth annual report for the first time to the distribution of electricity in rural areas. In that Report, on page 6, they say:
The problems of distribution have already assumed special prominence in recent years in connection with two aspects of development, namely, the growth in the domestic load in urban centres, and the demand for the extension of supplies in the less populous rural areas.
It is clear that this Bill will do a great deal to assist in that direction. Electricity minimises the drudgery of work both on the farm and in the home. It makes possible different forms of agricultural development, and it is available to assist the farmer to enable him to milk his cows, to prepare their food, and to pump the necessary water. It may also assist in the production of eggs. Electric brooders are being largely used in other countries, automatically regulated by thermostatic control. Electricity can often also be utilised to prolong the shorter days and encourage hens to lay more eggs. In countries like Sweden many acres of land have been devoted to glass heated entirely by electricity. This is used for growing fruit and vegetables, such as melons and lettuces, and it assists agriculture in this way to develop on various new and profitable lines.
If development is to take place, we must, however, do all we can to assist a Bill of this kind, because it will help to solve the problem of distribution. In this particular scheme we have an assisted scheme of distribution which is welcomed by the county councils concerned, and by other local authorities, and is looked forward to by the inhabitants of the district. I, therefore, earnestly hope that the House will accord the Measure a Second Reading.

Mr. SHINWELL: Several points have been raised by hon. Members in the Debate, but they may be photographed down to a simple issue—that is whether in the circumstances of this area the promotion of such a scheme is warranted. We have to remember that this is very largely a scattered, sparsely-populated, agricultural, semi-residential district, and the demand for electricity will not be considerable. Quite clearly the question of demand affects the price at which the produce can be sold, and the question of price affects the amount of consumption, and it is a question whether this company, in the words of the Minister of Transport, can afford to do without the very valuable and unique rating concession which they have been promised. Whatever advantage there is in the promotion of electricity schemes, every Member on these benches welcomes schemes of an efficient character. There can be no advantage in the submission and application of schemes which are redundant. We have asked ourselves, therefore, whether the scheme now promoted in this Bill is redundant, or whether it is a scheme which in the circumstances is desirable. It is proposed to make the seat of operations in Kirkcudbrightshire, and it is to extend over a long distance, as far nearly as Ayrshire, some 60 miles away. It is not unfair to ask why Ayrshire should not be provided with all the electricity it needs from Glasgow, or, as I am reminded, from the station at Kilmarnock. It is regarded as a super-station, and why the Electricity Board have homologated, to use a Scottish word, this proposal in face of the fact that the potentialities of the Glasgow stations, the Clyde Valley stations and the Kilmarnock stations are not clearly realised, but are known to be very vast, I cannot understand.
We have been told a great deal about the desirability of providing electricity for the purpose of promoting agricultural interests. We, on these benches, yield to none in this House in the desire to promote agricultural interests, if it means the promotion of agriculture. Incidentally, for the time being at all events, it means the promotion of the farmers' interests, but surely the hon. Member who has just sat down, and who appeared to have a very well-prepared brief on this
subject, does not pretend that every farmer in Kirkcudbrightshire and in this particular district will be provided with electricity, and cheaply and efficiently, as a result of the promotion of this scheme. He appears to forget that what will appeal to the farmer will be the question of price. If the price be not satisfactory, the farmer will not be in a position to avail of the offer that is made to him. There are many isolated farms, off the beaten track, which involve expensive wiring and cables and the like, and all that adds to the price at which the commodity can be procured. Therefore, many points have to be taken into consideration, and points of a very substantial character, before you are entitled to declare that you can promote agricultural interests in respect to the provision of electricity simply by the promotion of such a Measure.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who dealt with this Measure, if I may say so, in a very lukewarm and certainly not in a very detailed fashion, such as the Measure warranted, because he himself regarded it as a scheme with vast ramifications, said that he had been told by his experts—he is in the hands of experts in such matters, and one does not complain of that—that if this scheme were applied, it would mean a considerable reduction in price. Does it not depend upon several contingencies? Does it not depend upon the demand? Of course it does, and if the demand be not considerable, the price will not come down. Capital outlay has to be taken into account, as well as expenditure, both initial and recurring. All these considerations will be all the time before the owners of this particular scheme, and, therefore, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not entitled to say that the price will be low, at all events low enough to justify the consumers in that area purchasing the electricity.
I may be countered by what might be thought an effective reply. It may be said, "Would the promoters of this scheme"—whose names I shall mention in a moment—"proceed with this Measure if they had not sufficient evidence before them in respect of capacity regarding consumption and price to justify them?" But may it not be—here I furnish a reply—that they seek, at some time or other, to impinge upon
the preserves of the Glasgow Corporation and the Clyde Valley electricity supplies, and it may be upon the Kilmar-nock super station and, what is more germane, on the preserves of the Dumfries Town electricity supply?
10.0 p.m.
That brings me to what I think is the point of greatest importance, and I am quite satisfied that the Minister of Transport will agree with me in this. I think it was the intention of the Electricity Act to eliminate, so far as may be, unnecessary competition, to link up stations and super stations, and to effect a national electricity supply, but here we are faced with the promotion of a scheme that clearly involves, at some time or other, based upon the financial considerations involved and many others, the beginning of an intensive and ruthless competition in that particular area. It may be that the Electricity Board will come to the assistance of the municipal authorities, and indeed of the Clyde Valley and other undertakings, in the event of competition becoming too keen, but it will be much too late then, because much money will have been expended in the promotion of this scheme. Then the Electricity Board will be bound, in the circumstances, to keep their hands off, and I warn the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if he is zealous in the promotion of the principle of unification and is concerned for the national wellbeing in respect of electricity supply, not to take this Measure with a light heart, not to rely too much upon the opinion of his expert body.
Now, if I may for a moment or two, I would direct attention to one or two rather more detailed points. It has been argued from these benches, and indeed from the benches opposite—in this connection there is some common agreement—that this may affect the position of many coalminers, and indeed of coal-owners, in the neighbouring districts. I do not pretend that there is a very great deal of substance in the argument that, while there are coal resources, they should be always utilised for these and other purposes. I hope that some day we may find it possible to do without coal, and the exploitation of coal altogether, and if hydro-electric power is discovered to be an efficient substitute for power derived from coal, I am quite satisfied that no one on these benches would
desire to force miners down a pit. But in the circumstances, particularly such circumstances as confront us in Scotland, it would be more than madness to allow a scheme of this kind to be promoted when there are available supplies of coal, and at a cheap price; and I venture to say that as between the cost of generating electricity from coal at a price that is not artificial, but that is actually based on the cost of production—speaking in national terms, and not in terms of private profit-making—and the cost of generating electricity in this fashion, having regard to the initial cost involved, it may well be that it is cheaper to provide electricity generated from coal. At all events, the point has never been made clear, and it is a matter that ought to be taken into account.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did say, I think, that Sir Andrew Duncan, who is regarded as an expert in such matters, had welcomed this proposal. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, of course, forgot, perhaps conveniently so, that when the Electricity Board receive a proposal of this kind, they will naturally say, "Well, it is the best in the circumstances," when there is no alternative measure before them. That always happens. I had occasion the other day to sit as a member of a Committee—I shall not mention the name of the Committee and I shall not give details of this operation, but I sat as a member of a Committee—to take evidence with regard to a particular measure. The argument which was constantly adduced in support of the acceptance of the Bill was that as there was no alternative proposal we ought to accept this. It was not the best, of course; it had serious defects and blemishes, but there was nothing to present to us as a substitute. That is a faulty argument, if I may say so. Is it too much to say, seeing the terms of the Electricity Act and having regard to the wide power vested in the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport and his Department, that it was incumbent upon the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Electricity Commissioners and the Board responsible, to promote measures in place of the one which is being promoted in this Bill? It was their duty, it was their function, and, if they had done what I think the nation expected of them, and even hon. Members in all parts of the House expected,
when the Electricity Bill was going through—if they had proceeded to a large measure of unification, and had filled in the gaps, and quite obviously the gaps required to be filled in—without waiting until someone came along in a philanthropic spirit, benevolently-minded and generously disposed, and thinking only of the interest of the community as we are always told to promote a scheme of this kind, it would have been better for everybody. Now who are the promoters of this scheme? The hon. Member for Galloway (Captain Streatfeild), who so far, despite his interest in this Measure, has been inarticulate.

Captain STREATFEILD: Only so far.

Mr. SHINWELL: Except for some interruption which amounted to as much as no matter—

Captain STREATFEILD: Only one.

Mr. SHINWELL: Not that his speech would amount to much in any case. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's last observation was unseemly.

Mr. SHINWELL: With very great respect to you, Sir, not as unseemly as some of the things which are said by hon. Members on the opposite side and which are unnoticed.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have heard no such observations. The hon. Member makes a serious reflection upon me. If I hear unseemly observations from any hon. Member of the House, they will be dealt with in the proper way.

Mr. SHINWELL: I should be sorry, Mr. Speaker, if you thought what I said was a reflection on yourself. I did not suggest that you had heard the observations and had not noticed them, but they have been made in this House unnoticed by hon. Members, and made in the course of these proceedings. When hon. Members on the other side sitting on the Front Bench below the Gangway are squeamish about such matters as I discuss and the language which I use, may I remind them that it is not for those who live in glasshouses to throw stones. If they do not like my language, they can leave it alone. I shall say what I think is right and proper so long as I am not out of order;
and I am not out of order. I repeat that the hon. Member for Galloway who is sitting there has so far been inarticulate except for sending briefs round to other Members. All he has done so far as I can see is to deny that he has any monetary interest in this scheme. It is easy enough for hon. Members on the other side to deny that sort of thing; it is not easy for us to investigate so meticulously, having regard to all the circumstances. But here is my list; I do not know whether the hon. Member can recognise any of them. The Power Traction Finance Company—does the hon. Member know anything about that? Perhaps I should ask the Patronage Secretary? I beg his pardon; someone says that he is still slumbering. Then there is the Sir William Arroll Company and John Brown and Company—are those the philanthropists who are so concerned for the national well-being, and concerned about agricultural interest in Galloway, Kirkcudbrightshire and Ayrshire? Then there are Cammell Laird and Company, the English Electric Company—so much concerned with national interests as we saw quite recently—the Prudential Insurance Company, the Associated Portland Cement Company—that is in it, of course, because cement will obviously be required; you cannot erect an undertaking of this kind without cement—the Callender's Cable Company, Merz and McLellan, Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners. Those are the people behind this scheme, and it is because such people are behind the scheme that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Transport stands idly by and allows the national interests to be neglected.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask the hon. Member to explain what he means by saying that because these people are behind the scheme, I stand idly by?

Mr. SHINWELL: I shall be delighted to tell the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is because it is the policy of the Government, of which the right hon. and gallant Member is so distinguished an ornament, to promote constantly the interest of such concerns as I have mentioned rather than the interests of the community.

Colonel ASHLEY: That is absolutely untrue. We promote the interests of the
nation and not of any private concerns. We have much more care for the interests of the nation than the hon. Member has, at any rate.

Mr. SHINWELL: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is now disturbed from his complacency and is showing exactly what is in his mind, I am more than delighted.

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Is there no way of limiting the offensive-ness of the hon. Member?

Mr. SPEAKER: He has not been un-parliamentary since I last intervened.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the complacency which is shown at all times by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, when we can induce them to show what is in their minds, we are delighted.

Mr. SANDEMAN: May I ask the hon. Member a question? I should like to know where he suggests we should get our cement and our cables.

HON. MEMBERS: Poland!

Mr. SHINWELL: I should have thought that cement was the last thing which the hon. Member for Middleton (Mr. Sandeman) would be thinking of. It is quite obvious that hon. Members are not pleased.

HON. MEMBERS: Answer the question!

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the hon. Member really wish to have an answer? I understand that he is interested in the subject. We are discussing an electricity Bill. I do not know whether the hon. Member knew that, but I will tell him so. We understand that the Portland Cement Co. and the Associated Cement Co. are interested, not in the promotion of electricity schemes which are an advantage to the people in Kirkcudbrightshire, but in the sale of cement. I do not know whether that occurred to the hon. Member.

Mr. SANDEMAN: May I ask where you can buy cement and cables cheaper? After all, that is the question.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am reminded that it is not very easy to pierce the ring
which surrounds the sale of cement; but that is by the way. I do not want to transgress any more than I can help. There seems to be some surprise about that observation. I assure, you, Mr. Speaker, that so far as you yourself are concerned, it is perfectly true. As for the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House who are interrupting, for them I care nothing, but for you, Sir, I have some measure of respect. I come to my conclusion. [Laughter.] I need not come to it for some time for that matter; I have a great deal to say. I do not know whether hon. Members want to be kept here until 1 o'clock in the morning, but I can give them ample material to justify what I have said in my speech. Perhaps in the circumstances, I ought not to be tempted by the observations of those who are in the House temporarily. I want to submit that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Transport, who was almost beside himself a moment or two ago, is forgetting that the Electricity Act—I understood that he wished to have a reply; he put the point to me, and I am offering a reply, if I may have his attention for a moment, but with his usual courtesy he takes no notice. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman wanted to know whether I accused him of neglecting the national interest. May I put this to him? The Electricity Act provides him with powers which I have indicated in my speech, but he has not availed himself of those powers, and therefore I tell him quite frankly that he has neglected the national interest in this connection. The people of Kirkcudbrightshire will not thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for this Measure, nor will the people of Ayrshire. The county councils, town councils and other local authorities who are to lose in rates through the valuable concessions provided for this new concern will not thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. The only people who will thank him are these financial cliques, these unscrupulous financial adventurers, who are supported by hon. Members on the other side and are to some extent in association with them. I do not expect hon. Members opposite to agree that this Bill should be opposed, but I am satisfied that the people of Scotland in the area concerned will oppose this Measure if and when they get an opportunity in the next Election.

Captain STREATFEILD: I crave the indulgence of the House for interrupting the somewhat amusing entertainment to which we have just been treated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Amusing?"] Amusing from one point of view. We have a sense of humour in this House, and I think we should be rather lost without it. I venture to intervene as the Member for the constituency which is concerned in this Bill, and perhaps I may be allowed to deal with one or two arguments which have been put forward by those who are in opposition to it. A good deal has been said regarding Loch Doon and the flow of water from that loch down the river. It seems to me that is a purely technical objection, and that as a technical objection it is unable to hold any standing whatsoever. It is proposed by the engineers to raise the level of Loch Doon by something like 23 feet. If, as the opponents of this Bill allege, the water supply is going to be insufficient owing to the tapping by the Galloway electricity scheme the level of that loch will be lowered progressively until it becomes so low that it is of the slightest use neither for sewage purposes, for water supply, or for the electricity scheme. I suggest that the technical advisers and experts who have been consulted by the promoters of this scheme would never have suggested touching Loch Doon if such a state of affairs were to be brought about.

Lient.-Colonel MOORE: Will the hon. and gallant Member say why the promoters refuse to allow more than 45,000,000 gallons per day from the loch to flow down the river?

Captain STREATFEILD: The question of what quantity of water will flow down the river is on the lap of the gods. I understand that the normal flow down that river is 30,000,000 gallons per day, and under the scheme that 30,000,000 is to be increased to 45,000,000.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I would like to correct that statement. The normal flow in a period of great drought is 65,500,000. In a normal period it is 80,000,000 gallons. The first proposal that was made was that 30,000,000 gallons should be allowed, but afterwards that was raised to 45,000,000 gallons.

Captain STREATFEILD: I cannot see how any scheme put up purely from the
electrical engineering point of view can possibly require that amount of flow out of that particular loch. That is something which can only be judged by those who have a technical acquaintance with the generation of electricity by water power. The coal consumption under this scheme is not going to be as great as it otherwise would be. I am speaking as a coalowner, and any scheme which hits the collieries hits me personally.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us which collieries he is interested in?

Captain STREATFEILD: I do not see what that has to do with this Bill. I am not ashamed of my connection with collieries, and, if the hon. Member likes to know more about them, I will say that they are situated in Northumberland and Durham. In this case, we have to treat the situation as a whole. If you take the Galloway scheme the amount of water generating will equal less than 1.1 per cent. of the coal consumption of the whole country, and it cannot amount to any appreciable increase in employment among the miners.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I cannot let that statement pass.

Mr. SPEAKER: May I point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these constant interruptions are most irregular.

Captain STREATFEILD: If questions are put to me, I am only too pleased to answer them. Speaking from my technical knowledge of the coal industry I wish to say that it is anticipated that under the scheme of this Bill employment will be given to not less than 4,000 men for three years, and that the equivalent of coal consumption cannot possibly under any circumstances whatsoever result in the employment of anything like that number of men. Much objection has been raised in the course of this Debate to the effect of this scheme in regard to sewage. I think the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) raised this point. I appreciate the situation that he raises, but I would point out to him that the principle of hydro-electric generation is the utilisation of water power for turning turbo-generators in its passage from the source to the sea, and there is nothing in the
elementary principles of that type of electrical engineering to prevent it from carrying out sewage duties on its way.

Mr. HARDIE: I know that the water passes through a turbo-generator, and that it must pass out at a lower level than that at which it passes in, but I was quoting from a Clause in the Bill.

Captain STREATFEILD: I fail to see why the water, in passing from a higher to a lower level, should not first of all pass through a sewage farm and do its duty there, and then pass through the turbo-generator equally effectively. Again, the hon. Member took exception to the utilisation of water power resources by private enterprise, on the ground that they belong to the nation. I quite agree that the power of water as it flows from its source to the sea is the property of the nation, but who shall own the means whereby that power is converted into energy suitable for utilisation by human beings? The water itself, in passing from its source to the sea, is of no use: it is human ingenuity which devises the apparatus to harness the power given by that water, and that is a point which the hon. Member seriously overlooked. With regard to the question of unemployment, it has been said that this Bill, if it be passed, will provide employment for 4,000 men for three years. I agree that that is not a large number, but on the subject of unemployment I would plead that the House should give to every individual a chance.
There is one other aspect of this Bill, which has not yet been touched upon, and I speak here as one who represents the constituency concerned. I refer to the local opinion and local wishes in Kirkcudbrightshire. The speeches that have been made to-night from the benches opposite seem to have utterly ignored the existence of the people in Galloway. They have taken not the slightest notice of those people, and I venture to take this opportunity of telling the House precisely what the people in Galloway would require in regard to this Bill. The general opinion is in favour of the Bill. The county council, although an accusation has been levelled against them which almost amounts to an accusation of bribery, is in favour of the Bill. The Bill is going to be a further stage in the progressive development of this country. Lastly, I would ask the House to
remember that we in Galloway desire that this Bill should be passed, and I ask the House, as a democratic institution, not to override the wishes of the people of Galloway, but to give this Bill a Second reading.

Mr. W. BENNETT: In my opinion this Bill should be amended in Committee for one reason in particular. The Scottish Members are acquainted with the local aspect of the matter, but I want to touch on a question connected with figures which is dealt with in the Clauses commencing with Clause 9. This is not an ordinary private or limited company. It is the Galloway Water Power Company. It professes to be a public company for the service of the public, a company for the supply of a utility which is necessary to the citizen. If the Bill had been promoted by a municipality or a county council, on by the nation, there would have been a Clause compelling it to establish a sinking fund under the Act of 1898. Why has that been omitted? As the Act stands now, we are setting up a fresh hedge of vested interests which must be cut through before this can become a public property—before it can be acquired by the nation. Why should there not be exactly the same treatment meted out to a company of this nature as would be meted out if it was promoted in the national or municipal interest?
I do not know whether there will be an opportunity on the Third Reading or in Committee to move an Amendment of that nature, but I should strenuously oppose any Bill which purports to be a public Bill supplying a social service to the public which is not treated on precisely the same lines as a national or municipal undertaking would be, with a financial Clause which insists upon the redemption of the money that is invested in the company. In my opinion that is the great fault with most of the big companies, particularly railway companies. If only Clauses similar to those insisted upon in the case of municipalities and national undertakings had been incorporated when the railway companies were first inaugurated, there would be to-day none of the vested interests to oppose and it would be possible to carry freights and goods for British farmers as cheaply as they are now carried by national undertakings nearly all over the world. I shall
oppose the Bill on that account unless there is an assurance that we can move an Amendment insisting upon a sinking fund as part and parcel of the finance of this company, because it purports to be

COUNTY OF CORNWALL BILL [Lords]. (By Order.)

Read a Second time, and committed.

FINANCE BILL.

Postponed Proceedings resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

a public company supplying a public utility.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 39.

Division No. 282.]
AYES.
[10.34 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Harland, A.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Apsley, Lord
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. Sir Vivian
Ross, R. D.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Russell, Richard (Eddisbury)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Blundell, F. N.
Hills, Major John Waller
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandon, Lord


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Savery, S. S.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfast)


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
lliffe, Sir Edward M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Burman, J. B.
Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Storry-Deans, R.


Cooper, A. Duff
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Strauss, E. A.


Cope, Major Sir William
Margesson, Captain D.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Meller, R. J.
Templeton, W. P.


Edge, Sir William
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


Fenby, T. D.
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Warrender, Sir Victor


Flelden, E. B.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Ganzonl, Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge.
Wells, S. R.


Gates, Percy
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Frederick George
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Wolmer, Viscount


Grotrian, H. Brent
Price, Major C. W. M.
Wragg, Herbert


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Radford, E. A.



Hammersley, S. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hanbury, C.
Remer, J. R.
Captain Streatfeild and Brigadier-




General Charteris.




NOES.


Ammon, Charles George
Gardner, J. P.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Barnes, A.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Beckett, John (Gateshead)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bellamy, A.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Scurr, John


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hardle, George D.
Shinwell, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hayes, John Henry
Snell, Harry


Bromley, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Tinker, John Joseph


Charleton, H. C.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Welsh, J. C.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Windsor, Walter


Dalton, Ruth (Bishop Auckland)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Duncan, C.
Potts, John S.



Dunnico, H.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Lieutenant-Colonel Moore and




Mr. Sullivan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 29th April.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.